•>%. 


"^.W 


s;>2%f^  '.xi. 


v] 


<^ 


w 


■0  ^M       ''> 

^7  >> 


'^     ^  "=#  ^'^ 


/^ 


.^ 


V 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-S) 


1.0     11: 


S6 


Ui 


I.I 


2.0 


£   US 


1.8 


fliotographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


/, 


^  .5^**. 


1.25      1.4 

J4 

-^ 6"     — 

► 

23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


i/.s 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canndian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


^ 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  tachniquas  at  bibliographiquas 


Tha  Instituta  has  attamptad  to  obtain  tha  bast 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Faaturas  of  this 
copy  which  may  ba  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  altar  any  of  tha  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
:he  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


D 


D 


D 
D 

D 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  andommag^a 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restauria  Gt/ou  pallicul^e 


□    Cover  title  missing/ 
La  titre  de  couverture  manque 

r~n    Coloured  maps/ 


D 


Cartes  gtographiquas  en  couleur 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  an  couleur 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli*  avoc  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serree  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distorsion  la  long  de  la  marge  int^rieura 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  cartaines  pages  blanches  ajouties 
lors  d'une  restauration  appar^issant  dans  la  taxte, 
mais,  torsque  cela  Atait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  itA  filmtas. 


Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplimentaires; 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  la  mailleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  iti  possible  de  se  procurer.  Las  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique.  qui  peuvent  modifier 
una  image  reproduite.  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m^thoda  normale  de  filmaga 
sont  indiquAs  ci-dessous. 


□    Coloured  pages/ 
Pagaa  da  couleur 

□    Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagies 

□    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  rastaurias  at/ou  palliculAes 

r~7    Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 


D 


Pages  dicolories,  tachaties  ou  piquies 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ditachaes 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  inigale  de  {'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  material  suppUmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponibie 


[~~|  Pages  detached/ 

r~y]  Showthrough/ 

r~~l  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

p~]  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

r~n  Only  edition  available/ 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  ref limed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partieilement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  cnt  iti  filmies  ^  nouveau  de  facon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleuro  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filmi  au  taux  de  reduction  indiquA  ci-dessous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

J 

12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


The  copy  filmad  hare  hat  been  raproduced  thanks 
to  tha  ganarosity  of: 

Library  of  the  Public 
Archives  of  Canada 


L'axamplaira  filmA  fut  raproduit  grica  A  la 
ginAroaiti  da: 

La  bibiiothAqua  das  Archives 
pubiiques  du  Canada 


The  images  appearing  hare  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  —^-  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  ▼  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  At*  raproduites  avac  la 
plus  grand  soin,  compta  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
da  la  nattetA  de  rexemplaire  film*,  et  en 
conformity  avac  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  ImprimAe  sont  filmte  en  commenpant 
par  la  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
darnlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impreasion  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  la  second 
plat,  aalon  le  caa.  Tous  las  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmte  en  commenpant  par  la 
pramlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impreasion  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  darnlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparnttra  sur  la 
derniAre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbols  — »>  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbols  V  signifie  "FIN". 


IVIaps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartas,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  Atre 
fiimte  k  des  taux  de  reduction  diff Arents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichA,  11  est  filmA  A  partir 
da  I'angle  supArieur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite, 
et  de  haut  an  bas,  en  prenant  la  nombre 
d'images  nicessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrant  la  m^thoda. 


1  2  3 


32X 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

TRIAL  OF  LORD  STIRLING: 


nEINO 


/   • 


PART  II.  OF  THE  VINDICATION 


OP 


THE  RIGHTS  AND  TITLES, 


POLITICAL  AND  TERRITORIAL, 


0? 


ALEXANDER,  EARL  OF  STIRLING  AND  DOVAN, 


HEREDITARY  LIEUTENANT  GENERAL 


AND 


LORD   PROPRIETOR  OP  CANADA   AND   NOVA  SCOTIA. 


BY  JOHN  L.  HAYES, 

COUHSBLLOB    AT    LAW. 


WASHINGTON: 

GIDEON  &  CO.,  PRINTERS. 

185a 


m 


■;t. 


TRIAL  OE  LOUD  STIRLING. 


t; 


The  remarkable  fact  cannot  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  pubh'c 
(hat,  on  the  very  day  succeeding  the  one  on  which  tlie  notice  of  Lord 
Stirling's  claims  appeared  in  the  New  York  Herald,  long  and  most 
elaborately  prepared  attacks  upon  Lord  Stirling  appeared  simultane- 
ously in  several  New  York  papers.  That  these  attacks,  prepared  with 
80  much  care,  and  displaying  so  minute  a  knowledge  of  a  most  compli- 
cated case,  could  have  been  prepared  after  the  publication  in  the  Herald, 
no  one  can  believe.  A  clairvoyance,  more  mysterious  than  any  know- 
ledge of  the  *'Satanic  Press,"  alluded  to  in  one  of  these  attacks,  had  fore- 
seen the  announcement  of  Lord  Stirling's  case,  and  weeks  of  anxious 
labor  had  been  devoted  lo  expose  the  "transparent  humbug. "  J3ut  more 
extraordinary  even  than  the  celerity  with  which  these  rejoinders  arc 
given,  is  the  mysterious  knowledge  exhibited,  in  one  article  at  least,  of 
facts  and  circumstances  which  never  have  been  published  in  America, 
of  events  even  which  had  never  transpired  beyond  Scotland,  and  of 
rare  books  which  are  not  found  in  any  of  our  public  libraries.  It  can- 
not be  imagined  for  a  moment  that  any  of  Lord  Stirling's  former 
friends  in.  this  country  have  been  so  base  or  insane  as  to  betray  his  con- 
fidence. How,  then,  are  we  to  account  for  this  mysterious  knowledge — 
this  holy  horror  of  fraud  and  imposture,  so  unusual  in  the  most  violent 
of  the  assailing  papers;  this  undue  zeal  to  expose  an  imposture  which, 
according  to  their  showing,  is  only  ridiculous?  No  sooner  was  it  known 
in  England  that  Lord  Stirling  had  embarked  for  this  country,  than 
sixty  pages  of  Blackwood,  the  most  venal  and  violent  of  the  Tory 
magazines,  are  devoted  to  prejudice  the  American  public  by  a  false 
and  distorted  history  of  the  infamous  forgery  trial  which  had  occurred 
thirteen  years  before.  No  sooner  does  an  American  paper  vindicate 
his  rights,  than  a  masked  battery  is  opened  upon  Lord  Stirling  here. 
How  can  this  be  explained,  except  by  supposing  that  the  power  of  that 
mighty  Government  which  has  so  vital  an  interest  in  wresting  from  him 
liis  formidable  rights,  and  has  pursued  him  with  such  viudiclivcncss  in 


TRIAL    OP    LOUD    STinLINO. 


••I' 


hi  I 

! 

I 

•r 

4 


%  ,. 


Scotland,  England,  and  France,  lias  followed  Lord  Stirling  across  the 
Atlantic,  and  is  speaking  even  through  the  American  press!  Will  not 
these  things  open  the  eyes  of  the  American  people?  Will  not  they 
consider  that  a  cause  which  is  worthy  of  so  formidable  an  opposition 
must  possess  inherent  elements  of  strength? 

We  shall  not  attempt  to  answer  seriatim  the  charges  in  Blackwood 
or  the  American  papers.  The  positions  maintained  in  a  pamphlet, 
entitled  <'A  Vindication  of  the  Rights  and  Titles  of  Lord  Stirling," 
that  these  rights  and  titles  have  been  judicially  established  by  courts  of 
competent  jurisdiction,  and  have  been  officially  recognised  on  the  most 
solemn  occasions,  have  never  been  refuted. 

In  that  pamphlet,  prepared  by  Lord  Stirling's  counsel,  no  attempt 
was  made  to  mislead  the  public  as  to  Lord  Stirling's  position.  It  was 
distinctly  stated  that  he  was  o^,  ■  ^d  by  the  British  Government,  and  had 
been  for  years  pursued  by  the  officers  of  State  with  a  vindictiveness 
almost  unparalleled.  For  how  could  he  be  here  setting  up  claims  to 
the  fisheries  and  the  lands  of  Cai'.ada  and  Nova  Scotia,  except  in  open 
antagonism  to  the  Biitish  Government? 

No  attempt  was  made  in  the  statement  of  Lord  Stirling's  counsel  to 
keep  out  of  sight  the  trial  for  forgery,  for  it  has  always  been  intended 
to  present  the  full  history  of  this  trial  as  Lord  Stirling's  strongest  claim 
upon  the  sympathy  of  a  people  who  are  quick  to  rouse  themselves  at  a 
tale  of  grievous  oppression.  The  principal  object  in  this  paper  is  to 
give  to  the  world,  for  the  first  time,  the  true  narrative  of  this  remarka- 
ble trial,  which  is  destined  to  take  its  place  in  history.  But  before 
entering  jpon  that  narrative,  we  will  proceed  to  refute  the  main  posi- 
tions of  the  British  authorities,  or  their  mouth-pieces,  in  Blackwood 
and  some  American  papers. 


I.  It  is  asserted  that  the  Earldom  of  Stirling  and  the  estates  went 
only  to  heirs  male,  while  Lord  Stirling,  originally  known  before  his 
recognition  as  a  Peer  as  Mr.  Humphrys,  claimed  through  a  female. 

This  objection,  which  was  never  urged  before  the  civil  courts  in 
Scotland  in  the  attempts  of  the  officers  of  State  to  reduce  his  services,  or 
defeat  his  rights  as  heir  to  the  Earl  of  Stirling,  has  been  at  no  time 
brought  forward,  except  by  the  Crown  counsel  in  their  address  to  the 
jury  on  the  forgery  trial,  and  then  only  to  convey  the  impression  that 
a  charter  which  had  never  been  used  by  Lord  Stirling  to  prove  his  heir- 
ship, had  been  fabricated  to  overcome  this  difficulty  in  his  rights  ot 


TlllAL    OF    LOUIJ    STIRLlNCi. 


ling  across  the 

ess!     Will  not 

Will  not  they 

an  opposition 

in  Blackwood 
1  a  pamphlet, 
^ord  Stirling," 
ed  by  courts  of 
ed  on  the  most 

sel,  no  attempt 
jsition.  It  was 
ument,  and  had 
L  vindictiveness 
ng  up  claims  to 
,  except  in  open 

ing's  counsel  to 
8  been  intended 
3  strongest  claim 
themselves  at  a 
this  paper  is  to 
»f  this  remarka- 
Iry.     But  before 
le  the  main  posi- 
1,  in  Blackwood 


the  estates  went 
tnown  before  his 
)ugh  a  female, 
civil  courts  in 
|e  his  services,  or 
J  been  at  no  time 
|ir  address  to  the 
impression  that 
io  prove  his  heir- 
in  his  rights  ot 


succession.  This  in  itself  is  a  suilicient  answer  to  the  objectioiv  The 
limitation  of  all  the  American  property  by  the  charters  of  l()2i ,  1625, 
and  1028,  was  the  same,  namely:  "To  Sir  William  Alexander,  Itcred- 
ibiis  suis  et  assignatis  hereditarie,^^  (his  heirs  and  assigns  heritably.) 
There  is  in  these  charters  no  limitation  to  male  heirs.  Every  Scotch 
lawyer  knows  that  the  effect  and  meaning  of  this  limitation  has  always 
been  held,  according  to  the  Scotch  law  of  descent,  to  carry  the  enjoy 
mont  of  the  subject  limited,  in  this  case  the  estates  in  Canada  and 
Nova  Scotia,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  heirs  male  of  the  body  of  the 
original  grantee,  whom  failing,  to  the  heirs  female  of  the  last  heir  male 
111  a  snnilar  course  of  succession.  The  right  of  Lord  Stirling  to  the 
American  estates  is  established  by  the  common  law  of  Scotland,  and 
has  never  been  seriously  denied.  He  has  uniformly  foundetl  all  his 
proceedings  in  the  diflferent  services  on  the  charters  of  1621,  1625,  imd 
1028,  which  were  granted  to  his  ancestor,  Sir  Wm.  Alexander,  before 
his  elevation  to  the  peerage,  which  charters  are  all  on  record. 

It  is  true  that  the  patent  of  1633,  which  created  Sir  William  Alex- 
ander Earl  of  Stirling  and  Viscount  of  Canada,  limited  the  title  to  his 
male  heirs,  and  thus  the  American  property  was  granted  by  the  char- 
ters to  a  more  general  and  extended  series  of  heirs  than  the  titles. 

The  only  question  with  which  we  have  any  interest,  is  the  succes- 
sion of  the  lands  and  rights  in  America.  But  Lord  Stirling's  right  to 
his  titles,  though  this  is  comparatively  of  little  importance,  stands  on  an 
equally  strong  though  diflerent  basis. 

In  1637,  by  a  privy  seal  precept,  the  Earl  of  Stirling  was  created 
EarlofDovan.  The  limitation  in  this  case  was  to  his  eldest  lawful 
son  and  his  heirs  male  lawfully  procreate,  whom  failing,  to  the  heirs 
male  and  assignees  whatsoever  of  the  said  William  Earl  of  Stirling. 
Now,  by  the  law  of  Scotland,  it  has  been  decided  that  where  an  honor 
or  property  is  limited  heredibus  masculis  et  assignatis,  the  general 
heirs  being  included  in  the  term  assignatis,  the  heirs  male  of  the  body 
first  succeed,  and  when  they  have  failed,  ihen  the  heir  female,  com- 
prised in  the  word  ^' assignatis^'  of  the  last  heir  male,  becomes  entitled 
to  the  succession.  This  was  established  in  the  House  of  Lords  in  the 
Polwarth  case,  precisely  similar  to  this.    (See  Dod's  Peerage,  p.  409.) 

Thus  by  charters  which  are  undisputed,  and  by  laws  of  succession 
which  cannot  be  denied,  the  Earl  remains  heir  in  special  of  tailzie  and 
provision  to  the  totality  of  the  estates,  American  and  Scotch,  and  to  the 
Earldom  of  Dovan . 


i' 


■tl 


D  TRIAL   OF   LORll   HTIRLINK. 

We  come  to  a  statement  of  facts  wholly  unimportant  as  alTecting 
Lord  Stirling's  rights  to  his  American  property,  which  have  been  de- 
nied, but  which  are  susceptible  of  overwhelming  proof.  The  eldest 
son  of  the  Earl  of  Stirling  having  died  in  1038,  the  Earl  made  a  sur- 
render of  all  his  honors  and  estates  lulu  the  hands  of  King  Charles, 
who,  by  a  charter  of  Novo  damns,  under  the  great  seal  of  Scotland 
dated  the  7th  December,  1639,  regranted  them  to  the  Earl,  *'to  hold  to 
himself  and  the  heirs  male  of  his  body,  whom  failing,  to  the  eldest 
heirs  female,  without  division  of  the  last  of  such  heirs  male,  and  to  the 
heirs  male  of  the  bodies  of  such  heirs  female  respectively."  It  is 
admitted  that  the  original  charter  has  disappeared,  and  is  not  found  on 
record.  But  it  can  be  shown  where  it  was  at  difierent  periods  de- 
posited, who  were  the  possessors  of  it,  where  it  was  once  on  record, 
what  was  the  tenor  of  its  limitations,  and  the  casus  omissionis. 

That  the  charter  of  Novo  damns  of  1639  once  existed  is  established 
by  historical  evidence  wholly  independent  of  the  other  proofs  which  Lord 
Stirling  has  adduced,  and  which  will  hereafter  be  referred  to.    There 
is  evidence — all  of  which  we  need  not  refer  to  here — that  the  original 
charter  of  Novo  damns  was  in  possession  of  General  Wm.  Alexander, 
known  in  our  war  of  independence,  who  at  one  time  set  up  claims  to 
the  title.    It  is  believed  that  after  his  failure  in  the  House  of  Lords  he 
brought  this  charter  to  this  country,  and  that,  according  to  the  deposi- 
tion of  some  of  his  descendants,  it  was  burnt  with  other  papers  in  his 
house  at  Albany.    Horace  Walpole,-  in  his  Anecdotes  on  Painting, 
vol.  II.  p.  19,  under  the  head  of  Norgate,  says:   "The  best  evidence 
of  his  abilities  is  a  curious  patent  lately  discovered.     The  present  Earl 
of  Stirling  (General  Alexander,  to  whom  Walpole  courteously  gave 
the  title  which  he  claimed)  received  from  a  relation  an  old  box  of  neg> 
lected  writings,  among  which  he  found  the  original  commission  of 
Charles  the  First  appointing  his  lordship's  predecessor,  William,  Earl 
of  Stirling,  commander-in-chief  in  Nova  Scotia,  with  a  confirmation 
of  the  grant  of  that  province  made  by  James  the  First.     In  the  initial 
letter  are  the  portraits  of  the  King  sitting  on  the  throne,  delivering  the 
patent  to  the  Earl;  and  round  the  border,  representations  in  miniature 
of  customs,  huntings,  fishings,  and  productions  of  the  country,  all  in 
the  highest  state  of  preservation,  and  so  admirably  executed,  tliat  it 
was  believed  to  be  of  the  pencil  of  Vandyke;  but,  as  I  know  of  no  in- 
stance of  that  master  having  painted  in  this  manner,  I  cannot  doubt 
but  it  is  the  work  of  Norgate,  allowed  to  be  the  best  illuminator  of  that 


nge,  an 

patents 

Norg 

illumini 

illumini 

one  gran 

liam  Al( 

prior  to 

charter  ( 

recited  a 

The  8 

charter 

The  first 

grandson 

ada.  Th 

months, 

his  heirs 

would  he 

ed  by  an 

uncle  H< 

creditors  < 

commenc 

tition  the] 

male  of 

Earl  of  S 

provision  i 

of  the  crei 

vision,  in 

father,  th( 

count  Cat 

notoriety  < 

the  whole 

charter  of 

All  mat 

traditional 

ence  of  th 

known  to 

seat  as  Pet 

ling  was  n 


TRIAL  OF   LORD   8TIRLINO. 


int  as  aflfecting 
have  been  de- 
r.     The  eldest 
irl  made  a  sur- 
King  Charles, 
1  of  Scotland^ 
irl,  "to  hold  to 
;,  to  the  eldest 
ale,  and  to  the 
lively."    It  is 
is  not  found  on 
mt  periods  de- 
)nce  on  record, 
issionis. 
1  is  established 
Dofs  which  Lord 
red  to.    There 
hat  the  original 
''m.  Alexander, 
set  up  claims  to 
mse  of  Lords  he 
g  to  the  deposi- 
er  papers  in  his 
on   Painting, 
te  best  evidence 
le  present  Earl 
ourteously  gave 
old  box  of  neg* 
commission  of 
William,  Earl 
a  confirmation 
In  the  initial 
delivering  the 
ns  in  miniature 
country,  all  in 
xecuted,  that  it 
know  of  no  in- 
I  cannot  doubt 
imiualor  of  that 


age,  and  generally  employed,  says  Fuller,  to  make  the  initial  letters  of 
patents  of  peers  and  commissions  of  ambassadors." 

Norgatc  was  appointed  Windsor  Herald  in  1633,  and  soon  after, 
illuminator  of  royal  patents.  From  the  date  of  his  appointment  aa 
illuminator  of  royal  patents,  it  is  clear  that  the  patent  nmst  have  been 
one  granted  after  1 633.  The  charters  of  Nova  Scotia  granted  to  Sir  Wil- 
liam Alexander  were,  the  one  eight  years,  and  the  other  twelve  years, 
prior  to  1633.  The  one  alluded  to,  then,  could  only  be  the  original 
charter  of  Novo  damns  of  1639,  in  which  all  the  previous  grants  were 
recited  and  re-confirmed. 

The  succession  of  the  estates  in  1640,  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
charter  of  1639,  proves  incontestably  the  existence  of  the  charter. 
The  first  Earl  died  in  February,  1640,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  infant 
grandson,  only  son  of  his  deceased  eldest  son,  William,  Viscount  Can- 
ada. This  William,  second  Earl,  survived  his  grandfather  scarcely  six 
months,  when  he  died,  under  eight  years  of  age,  leaving  three  sisters, 
his  heirs  portioners,  by  the  Scotch  common  law,  t.  e.,  thesn  heirs 
would  have  been  entitled  to  divide  his  estates  had  they  not  been  limit- 
ed by  an  entail  which  cut  them  off,  and  gave  their  inheritance  to  their 
uncle  Henry,  who,  in  fact,  succeeded  as  third  Earl.  Again,  some 
creditors  of  the  first  Earl  presented  a  petition  to  Parliament  for  leave  to 
commence  certain  legal  proceedings  against  the  third  Earl.  In  this  pe- 
tition they  thus  describe  him,  <<  Harrie,  Earl  of  Stirling,  son  and  heir 
male  of  tailzie  and  provision  (or  of  entail)  to  umquile  William, 
Earl  of  Stirling,  his  father  and  brother,  and  heir  male  of  tailzie  and 
provision  to  the  said  William ,  Lord  Alexander,  &c. "  The  application 
of  the  creditors  in  charging  Earl  Harrie  as  Ae«r  male  of  tailzie  and  pro- 
vision, in  the  very  terms  of  the  charter  of  Novo  damns,  hot  only  to  his 
father,  the  first  Earl,  but  to  his  brother,  the  deceased  William,  Vis- 
count Canada,  puts  on  the  journals  of  Parliament  the  evidence  of  the 
notoriety  of  the  charter;  for  there  was  not  any  record  of  any  entail  of 
the  whole  of  the  Stirling  estates  to  warrant  such  a  description,  if  the 
charter  of  Novo  damns  did  not  exist. 

All  matters  relative  to  succession  of  honors  are  carefully  preserved  as 
traditional  knowledge  by  the  nobility  of  Scotland.  The  former  exist- 
ence of  this  charter,  and  the  nature  of  its  limitations,  were  perfectly 
known  to  the  Peers  of  Scotland;  so  that,  when  Lord  Stirling  took  his 
seat  as  Peer  in  1825,  no  objection  to  his  right  to  the  Earldom  of  Stir- 
ling was  raised  by  his  associate  Peers.    On  the  contrary,  he  was  asked 


*!-';.' ft  I 


TRIAL   OP   LORD    STIRLING. 


U 


on  every  side  why  he  hnd  not  resumed  his  rnnk  nt  an  cnrhcr  dntc,  hit^ 
right  ns  the  grnndson  of  the  Rev.  John  Alexander,  sixth  FinrI,  being 
well  known  to  them.  He  took  his  scat  umjuestioncd,  just  as  the  pres- 
ent Duke  of  Wellington  has  taken  the  seat  of  his  late  father.  By  voting 
as  a  Peer  for  a  period  of  twelve  years,  he  became  de  facto  flarl  of  Stir- 
ling; for  if  a  Scotch  Peer  takes  his  seat  by  virtue  of  a  royal  proclama- 
tion unopposed,  and  votes  at  elections,  though  it  were  in  error,  his  title 
is  as  much  acquired  thereby,  as  were,  under  writs  of  summons  in  the 
time  of  Charles  the  Ist,  the  title  of  Baron  Strange,  by  which  James, 
eldest  son  of  William,  Earl  of  Derby,  and  the  title  of  Lord  Clifford,  by 
which  Henry,  eldest  son  of  Francis,  Earl  of  Cumberland,  were  re- 
spectively summoned  to  Parliament.  These  baronies  were  at  the 
time  presumed  to  be  vested  in  the  fathers  of  the  young  men  so  sum- 
moned; but  although  it  was  afterwards  ascertained  that  the  said  ba- 
ronies were  not  so  legally  vested,  yet  as  the  persons  summoned  had 
taken  their  seats,  the  House  of  Lords  was  obliged  to  admit  that  the 
writs  operated  as  new  creations.     (See  Cruise  on  Dignities,  p.  43.) 

Lord  Stirling  was  not  bound  to  go  to  the  House  of  Lords  for  recog- 
nition of  his  title.  This  title  is  as  firmly  founded  as  that  of  the  Earl 
of  Newburgh,  the  Earl  of  Cassilis,  the  Earl  of  Dundonald,  the  Earl 
of  Kintore,  the  Earl  of  Breadalbane^  the  Earl  of  Stair,  and  many 
others  who  assumed  their  titles  on  the  deaths  of  distant  cousins;  none 
of  whom  have  gone  to  the  House  of  Lords  for  confirmation  of  title. 
(Vide  Debrett's  Peerage  and  hoAge,  passim.) 

Eminent  counsel  among  others,  James  Wilson,  a  celebrated  Scotch 
advocate,  now  chief  justice  of  the  Mauritius,  have  dissuaded  Lord 
Stirling  from  going  to  the  House  of  Lords.  Judge  Wilson  in  a  written 
opinion  now  before  us  says,  <'  In  my  humble  opinion,  were  he,  (Lord 
Stirling,)  to  go  to  the  House  of  Lords  by  petition  for  allowance  of  dig- 
nity, he  would  be  confessing  a  doubt  of  his  own  character,  surrendering 
the  rights  of  the  Scotch  nobility,  and  recognising  a  jurisdiction  in  this 
particular  not  made  imperative  by  the  treaty  of  union.  Still,  a  party 
claiming  the  dignity  of  a  Scotch  Peerage  may,  if  he  choose,  try  the 
experiment,  whether  the  House  of  Lords  will  entertain  his  claim,  or 
decide  upon  it;  and  there  are  instances  in  which  the  party  has  so  ap- 
plied, and  the  House  so  acted.  But  as  far  as  Scotch  authorities  ena- 
ble me  on  principle  so  to  judge,  I  consider  such  applications,  except  in 
cases  utterly  distinct  and  different  from  the  present,  to  have  been  merely 


J-ll: 


TRIAL  OP   LORD  STIRLING. 


9 


snrlicr  dfttc,  his 
th  Knrl,  being 
list  ns  the  prcs- 
>er.    By  voting 
:to  FiUrl  of  Stir- 
oyal  proclama- 
n  error,  his  title 
uinmons  in  the 
Y  which  James, 
,ord  Clifford,  by 
jrland,  were  re- 
33  were  at   the 
\g  men  so  sum- 
lat  the  said  ba- 
summoned  had 
5  admit  that  the 
lities,  p.  43.) 
Lords  for  recog- 
that  of  the  Earl 
[lonald,  the  Earl 
Stair,  and  many 
It  cousins  j  none 
irmation  of  title. 

elebrated  Scotch 
dissuaded  Lord 
Ison  in  a  written 
,  were  he,  (Lord 
lUowance  of  dig- 
ter,  surrendering 
irisdiction  in  this 
Still,  a  party 
e  choose,  try  the 
lin  his  claim,  or 
party  has  so  ap- 
authorities  cna- 
ations,  except  in 
lavc  been  merely 


optional  in  the  party,  and  probably  resorted  to  from  motives  of  con- 
venience. 

If  the  present  Earl  of  Stirling  has  formally,  legally,  and  on  suffi- 
cient evidence,  proved  his  character,  as  ex  facie  appears  from  the  ser- 
vice and  retour,  &c.,  he,  until  successfully  challenged  by  a  competitor 
nearer  in  blood,  is  and  must  remain  the  Earl  of  Stirling,  whether  he 
seeks  for  and  obtains  from  the  House  of  Lords  the  allowance  of  digni- 
ties or  not."    The  opinion  of— 

JAMES  WILSON. 

That  the  charter  of  Novo  damns  is  not  registered  in  Scotland  is  no 
objection  to  Lord  Stirling's  right  to  his  title,  even  if  he  claimed  under 
that  charter  alone.  By  referring  to  the  return  of  the  Lords  of  Ses- 
sion to  the  order  of  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  in  Parliament 
assembled,  of  date  June  12,  1739,  it  appears  that,  at  the  period  in 
question,  searches  were  vainly  made  for  the  patents  of  creation  to  nu- 
merous Scotch  Peerages;  and  among  others  those  of  Ochiltree,  Borth- 
wick,  Spynie,  Cardross,  Jedburgh,  Maderlzy,  Baigany,  had  entir'ely 
disappeared.  It  also  appears  that  the  patent  of  Lord  Forester,  dated 
in  1651,  was  not  entered  in  the  register  till  1683;  and  that  of  the  Earl 
of  Breadalbane,  sealed  in  1682,  had  never  been  registered  at  all. 
The  patent  of  Lord  Ruthven  is  stated  to  have  been  burnt  when  the 
family  residence  was  destroyed  by  fire;  and  although  there  was  no  re- 
cord of  it,  no  vestige  of  any  authentic  proof  of  its  limitations,  yet  the 
ancestor  of  the  present  Lord  succeeded  on  the  demise  of  the  then  ex- 
isting Baron,  without  heirs  male,  unchallenged  to  the  honor.  The 
enjoyment  of  these  and  other  titles  was,  as  in  the  case  of  Lord  Stirling, 
secured  by  services  of  heirship^  and  by  voting  without  challenge  at 
elections  of  Peers. 

We  repeat  that  the  right  to  the  estates  in  Canada^  Nova  Scotia, 
and  the  fisheries,  resting,  as  it  does,  on  existing  and  undisputed 
charters,  is  whoUy  independent  of  the  title;  we  have  dwelt  thus  long 
upon  this  point  only  to  show  that  Lord  Stirling  has  assumed  no  posi- 
tion, either  with  respect  to  rights  to  lands  or  titles,  on  which  he  is  not 
perfectly  impregnable. 

II.  It  is  asserted  that  the  son  and  heir  of  the  first  Lord  Stirling 
granted  all  the  possessions  of  the  family  in  America  to  De  la  Tour. 
This  statement  is  only  thus  far  true: 

In  1630  a  grant  was  made  by  Sir  Wm.  Alexander  to  Sir  Claude 
2 


I 


Jy 


10 


TRIAL  OF   LORD   STIRLING. 


•St.  Gslienne,  Knight  Lord  of  La  Tour,  and  his  brother  Charles  de  St. 
Eslienne.  This  grant  is  recorded  in  the  records  of  Suffolk  county, 
Mass.,  lib.  No.  'S,  fo.  265.  The  grant  covered  only  a  portion  of  the 
southwestern  coast  of  Nova  Scotia.  This  grant  was  on  condition  that 
this  Knight  Oe  la  Tour  and  his  brother  should  be  good  and  faithful 
Vassab  of  the  sovereign  Lord  the  King  of  Scotland.  The  condition 
Was  not  complied  with,  and  the  lands  reverted  to  the  grantor.  There 
ii  no  evidence  of  any  other  deed.  The  grant  to  De  la  Tour  was  in 
1630.  In  1632,  King  Charles,  by  his  royal  missive,  sending  a  signa- 
ture for  ten  thousand  pounds  as  a  compensation  for  the  surrender  of 
I'ort  Royal,  says,  <<it  is  in  nowise  for  quitting  the  ti'le,  right,  or  pos- 
session of  New  Scotland,  or  of  any  part  thereof,  but  only  for  the  satis- 
faction of  the  losses,  &c.;  and  we  are  so  far  from  abandoning  of  that 
business,  as  we  do  hereby  require  you  and  everie  one  of  you  to  afford 
your  best  encouragement  for  farthering  of  the  same,"  &>c. 

Moreover,  M.  D*AnvilIe,  the  accurate  French  geographer,  in  his 
groAt  chart  of  North  America,  published  in  1735,  and  the  memoir  rela- 
tive thereto,  says:  "Nova  Scotia,  usurped  by  the  French  in  1603. 
They  were  forced  out  by  Orgal  in  1613,  Granted  in  1621  to  Sir  Wni. 
Alexander,  and  the  boundaries  were  St.  Lawrence  River  on  the  north, 
and  on  the  west  St.  Croix.  By  a  second  grant  in  1635  it  was  en- 
larged to  the  Kenebec  River,  to  co-extend  Nova  Scotia  with  Acadia." 
Sir  William  Alexander  could  not  have  wanted  a  grant  in  1635  to  en- 
large a  country  which  he  hud  disposed  of  in  1630. 


III.  It  is  asserted  that  the  rights  of  the  Stirlings  to  Nova  Scotia  and 
Canada  were  lost  by  the  conquest  of  these  countries  by  France;  that 
they  were  restored  to  Great  Britain  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  of  1713 
on  a  new  basis,  as  if  they  then  became  British  for  the  first  time. 

By  the  very  terms  of  the  charters  no  efTective  cession  of  those  coun- 
tries could  have  been  made  without  Sir  Wm .  Alexander's  assent.  The 
King  had  renounced  all  lands,  privileges,  jurisdiction,  <kc.,  "together 
with,"  following  the  terms  of  the  charters,  "all  right,  title,  &c.,  which 
We  or  our  predecessors,  or  successors,  have  had,  or  any  way  can  have, 
claim  or  pretend  to."  This  point  was  very  gravely  considered  by 
lawyers  the  most  distinguished  for  their  knowledge  of  national  law. 
We  have  before  us  ihe  joint  opinion  of  the  distinguished  Privy  Coun- 
cillor, the  Right  Honorable  Stephen  Lushington,  1).  C.  L.,  Judge  of 


TRIAL  OP  LORD  STIRLING. 


n 


!harles  de  St. 
iffolk  county, 
)ortion  of  the 
:ondition  that 
d  and  faithful 
rhe  condition 
intor.    There 
I  Tour  was  in 
tiding  a  signa- 
e  surrender  of 
,  right,  or  pos- 
j  for  the  satis- 
[]oning  of  that 
f  you  to  afford 
.c. 

;rapher,  in  his 
B  memoir  rela- 
unch in  1603. 
)21toSirWm. 
r  on  the  north,. 
(35  it  was  en- 
with  Acadia." 
in  1635  to  en- 


ova  Scotia  and 
f  France;  that 
trecht  of  1713 
rst  time, 
of  those  coun- 
assent.    The 
ic,  "together 
lie,  &c.,  which 
Iway  can  have. 
]  considered  by 
national  law. 
|lI  Privy  Coun- 
L.,  Judge  of 


the  Oonaislory  Court,  and  Judge  of  the  High  Court  of  Admij-alty,  d&c, 
and  Hon.  James  Wilson,  now  Chief  Judge  at  the  Mauritius. 

After  giving  their  opinion  that  the  rights  of  Lord  Stirling  had  not 
been  lost  by  non  user,  and  that  the  estates  had  not  been  alie!?-«ted  by 
his  ancestors,  the  learned  counsel  cautiously  proceed  to  ^'consider  the 
effect  of  the  territory  of  Nova  Scotia  and  Canada  having  by  conquest 
and  cession  passed  into  the  power  of  another  State." 

<<We  are  of  opinf.n,"  say  they,  *<that  the  additional  information 
with  which  we  have  been  furnished  has  greatly  diminished  some  of 
the  difficulties  which  rendered  the  result  uncertain.  The  difficulties 
diminished  are  those  arising  from  the  treaties;  and  the  case  is  greatly 
assisted  in  another  respect  by  the  reservation  in  King  William's  char* 
isr.  In  these  respects  the  case  certainly  staflds  more  favorably.  It  is 
held  that,  if  a  colony  be  conquered  by  the  enemy  during  war,  and 
given  up  at  the  peace  by  treaty,  all  rights  existing  previous  to  the  con- 
quest revert  to  the  proprietors,  with  some  exceptions  not  material  to  this 
case.  If  a  colony  be  ceded  by  treaty,  the  right  of  the  Crown  ceding 
such  colony  is  wholly  extinguished.  The  rights  of  individuals,  as  we 
formerly  stated,  depend  on  the  State  to  which  the  cession  is  made;  and 
if  hereafter  the  same  colony  should  be  given  back  by  treaty  to  the 
State  whicli  formerly  held  it,  that  State  will  take  it  back  precisely  as  it 
stood  at  the  time  when  so  last  ceded,  free  from  all  rights,  titles^  an(| 
encumbrances  which  may  have  existed  at  the  time  of  the  first  cession, 
and  annihilated  before  the  retrocession. 

"Presuming  that  the  claim  of  the  grantees  is  not  extinguished  by  the 
different  cessions,  we  think  that  nothing  appears  to  have  been  done 
by  the  Crown  or  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  which  can  have  tho 
effect  of  destroying  those  rights." 

ly.  It  is  urged  that  the  proceedings  by  which  Lord  Stirling  was 
judicially  served  heir  to  Sir  Wm.  Alexander  are  entitled  to  no  weight. 

It  is  stated  in  the  longest  and  most  serious  attack  made  on  Lord 
Stirling,  and  one  containing  such  minute  references  to  circumstaices 
not  known  out  of  Scotland,  although  distorted  and  falsely  stated,  t'iat 
it  bears  intrinsic  evidence  of  its  foreign  origin,  as  follows:  "In  Scot- 
land, by  old  practice,  on  going  through  certain  formalities,  a  man  who 
claims  tide  or  land,  or  both,  may  be  served  heir  before  the  macers, 
(officers  in  attendance  on  the  Supreme  Court,)  on  putting  in  his  claim, 
producing  documents  which  were  not  examined,  except  when  they 


12 


TIlIAL  OF   LORD   STIRLING. 


■*  I 


9 


..m 


$ 


(J! 

M 
4 


ill 


attempted  to  obtain  property  and  were  challenged;  and  this  service 
(usually  made  with  a  free  circulation  of  the  whiskey  bottle)  obtained  a 
public  and  judicial  certificate  of  his  pedigree,  which,  if  subsequently 
questioned,  has  to  be  disproved  by  evidence.  Mr.  Humphrys,  before 
this  drunken  tribunal,  (of  macers,)  whose  occupation  in  sucii  matters 
has  since  been  abolished,  thus  asserted  his  descent,"  &,c.  Further  on 
it  is  said,  Mr.  Humphrys  had  really  been  so  served  ''before  the 


macers.' 


ii 


In  BelFs  Dictionary  of  the  Law  of  Scotland,  under  the  word 
"macers,"  is  the  following  passage:  "Brieves  for  serving  heirs  where 
the  Judge  Ordinary  is  incompetent,  or  where  expediency  renders  it 
necessary,  were  formerly  directed  to  the  macers  of  the  Court  of  Ses- 
sion as  the  sherifTs  in  that  part,  under  a  special  commission  from  the 
Chancery  office.  This  practice,  however,  was  abolished  in  1821 ;  and 
by  statute  1  and  2,  George  IV,  c.  28,  §11,  those  services  which  were 
in  use  to  be  conducted  before  the  macers  are  directed  to  proceed  before 
the  sheriff  depute  of  Edinburgh,  or  his  substitute,  under  a  special 
commission  from  Chancery,  similar  to  that  in  virtue  of  which  the 
macers  formerly  acted."  • 

Lord  Stirling's  services  were  commenced  and  completed,  one  in 
1826,  one  in  1830,  and  two  in  1831;  each  before  a  jury  of  fifteen,  all 
under  the  amended  system  established  in  1821,  and  none  of  them 
before  the  macers.  Of  the  last  jury,  before  whom  the  most  important 
service  was  made,  two  were  eminent  advocates,  ten  others  lawyers 
well  known  and  respected,  and  the  three  others  a  distinguished  physi- 
cian, an  heir  to  a  baronetcy,  and  a  respectable  accountant.  Even 
Lord  Meadowbank,  who  five  years  afterwards  figured  so  disreputably 
in  the  forgery  trial,  on  an  application  for  a  trial  by  jury  in  the  civil 
case  of  reduction  of  the  services,  in  giving  the  decision  that  there 
should  be  no  jury  trial,  bore  testimony  to  the  high  character  of  this 
jury.  He  says:  "After  fifteen  gentlemen,  forming  the  respectable  jury 
empannelled  for  Lord  Stirling's  services,  had  given  their  verdict,  as 
they  appeared  on  this  record,  it  would  be  inconsistent  to  submit  those 
verdicts  to  the  revision  of  twelve  men,  who  might  be  selected  from  th« 
shopkeepers  of  the  city.' 


>> 


y.  It  is  said  that  there  are  other  descendants  of  Sir  William  Alex- 
ander who  are  better  entitled  to  the  estates  and  honors. 
Those  mentioned  are  the  heirs  of  Gen.  Alexander,  of  revolutionary 


memor; 

tion  at 

Stirling 

pretensi 

ander  ( 

Stirling 

to  the  p 

show  th 

In  18 

Mr.  Wa 

rights  of 

papers  t< 

opinion. 

first  Ear 

the  presc 

after  he  1 

promisin 

had  relie 

TheJV 

dant  of  t 

the  prese 

scendant 

she  has 

a  suit  to  ] 

in  vain,  c 

mother,  t 

heir.    Tl 

issue  is  a 

a  legal  rij 

Finally 

Lord  Stirl 

although 

tained  fn 

arms  of  A 

practice  ir 


TRIAL  OF  LORD   STIRLING. 


13 


this  service 
3)  obtained  a 
subsequently 
jhrys,  before 
such  matters 

Further  on 
« before  the 

ler  the  word 
r  heirs  where 
ey  renders  it 
Court  of  Ses- 
sion from  the 
in  1821 ;  and 
3  which  were 
)roceed  before 
der  a  special 
of  which  the 

>leted,  one  in 
of  fifteen,  all 
tone  of  them 
lost  important 
jthers  lawyers 
ruished  physi- 
ntant.     Even 
disreputably 
ry  in  the  civil 
Dn  that  there 
aracter  of  this 
spectable  jury 
eir  verdict,  as 
submit  those 
eted  from  th« 


memory,  and<  the  la(e  Marchioness  of  Downshire.  We  meet  this  objec- 
tion at  once  by  referring  to  the  four  services  by  which  the  present  Lord 
Stirling  was  served  heir  without  a  competitor.  With  regard  to  the 
pretensions  of  the  heirs  of  Gen.  Alexander  we  remark,  that  Gen.  Alex- 
ander did  not  claim  to  have  descended  lineally  from  the  first  Lord 
Stirling,  but  from  a  collateral  branch  of  the  family,  and  that  his  claim 
to  the  peerage  was  rejected  by  the  House  of  Lords  because  he  did  not 
show  that  the  lineal  descendants  were  extinct. 

In  1840,  after  the  forgery  trial,  which  we  shall  hereafter  describe, 
Mr.  Watts,  a  grandson  of  Gen.  Alexander,  undertook  to  establish  the 
rights  of  his  family  to  the  Stirling  titles  and  estates.  He  presented  his 
papers  to  the  most  eminent  counsel  in  London,  and  paid  ^200  for  an 
opinion.  They  advised  him  that  he  did  not  show  a  descent  from  the 
first  Earl  of  Stirling,  and  that  bis  papers  went  to  confirm  the  rights  of 
the  present  Earl.  We  have  before  us  ihe  letters  of  Mr.  Watts,  written 
after  he  had  abandoned  his  claim,  addressing  Lord  Stirling  by  his  title, 
promising  to  place  in  his  hands  the  documentary  proof  upon  which  he 
had  relied. 

The  Marchioness  of  Downshire  was  unquestionably  a  lineal  descen- 
dant of  the  first  Earl;  and  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  of  the  rights  of 
the  present  Lord  Stirling  is  the  fact  that,  although  an  undoubted  de- 
scendant of  the  first  Earl;  and  the  wife  of  a  rich  and  powerful  peer, 
she  has  never  appeared  to  compete  in  his  services  or  has  brought 
a  suit  to  reduce  them.  Lord  Stirling  has  repeatedly  and  publicly,  but 
in  vain,  challenged  the  late  Marquis  of  Downshire,  representing  his 
mother,  to  compete  with,  or  try  by  a  legal  issue,  who  was  the  nearest 
heir.  The  refusal  of  other  descendants  of  the  first  Earl  to  meet  this 
issue  is  a  distinct  acknowledgment  that  the  present  Earl  of  Stirling  has 
a  legal  right  to  the  honors  of  the  family. 

Finally,  let  us  point  out  as  evidence  of  the  sjurit  of  these  attacks  on 
Lord  Stirling  that  his  opponents  persist  in  calling  him  Mr.  Humphrys, 
although  they  knew  well  that,  previous  to  assuming  his  title,  he  ob- 
tained from  King  George  lY  his  royal  license  to  take  the  name  and 
arms  of  Alexander.  This  taking  of  the  mother's  name  is  a  common 
practice  in  England  when  the  mother  happens  to  be  an  heiress. 


Villiam  Alex- 
revolutionary 


■li! 


14 


TRIAL   OP   LORD    STIRLING. 


-i 


1  '■! 


We  have  stood  long  enough  on  the  defensive.  The  ncciisere  shall 
now  become  the  accused.  We  will  give  a  narrative  of  political  op- 
pression such  as  the  records  of  the  Star  Chamber  cannot  parallel. 
This  true  history  is  all  the  reply  that  need  be  given  to  Blackwood. 
We  ask  our  readers  to  look  on  that  picture  and  on  this,  and  we  will 
abide  by  their  verdict. 

Let  the  position  of  Lord  Stirling  be  remembered.  He  claimed 
under  royal  charters  the  right  of  ownership  and  government  over  Eng- 
land's most  cherished  colonies.  He  aimed  to  seize  the  brightest  jewels 
of  the  British  Crown.  All  the  pretences  first  set  up  against  these 
claims,  some  of  which  we  have  already  considered,  were  found  so 
frivolous  that  they  could  not  be  sustained.  Although  Lord  Stirling's 
position  had  been  fully  recognised  before  the  extent  of  bis  claims  was 
known,  political  necessity  demanded  his  ruin.  The  task  was  a  formi- 
dable one  for  the  Crown.  His  position  seemed  impregnable.  His 
heirship  and  title  had  been  acknowledged  by  the  English  Government, 
through  the  Lord  Chancellor,  Lyndhurst,  two  Prime  Ministers,  Earl 
Grey  and  Lord  Melbourne,  Lord  Stanley,  Secretary  of  the  Colonies, 
the  Lords  of  the  Treasury,  and  the  Lords  of  the  Committee  of  (he 
Privy  Council,  which  last  was  the  act  of  the  King  in  Council.  It 
had  been  established  according  to  Scottish  usage  and  precedent.  Sixty 
intelligent  men  had  pronounced  upon  his  condition.  The  sympathies 
of  the  people  were  with  him.  Their  Jiereditary  knowledge  of  the 
descent  of  ancient  families,  no  where  so  well  preserved  as  in  Scotland, 
had  satisfied  them  as  to  his  rights;  and  it  may  be  remarked  that  the 
popular  sympathy  was  with  him  to  the  very  last.  The  bui^hers  of 
Stirling  had  welcomed  him  to  the  seat  of  his  family,  and  had  presented 
hiiti  the  freedom  of  the  city.  He  had  been  invited  to  appear  at  the 
gathering  of  the  clans  Alexander  and  McAllister,  and  assume  his  posi- 
tion as  chieftain.  The  Baronets  of  Nova  Scotia  were  about  to  call 
him  to  his  place  as  the  head  of  their  order.  The  bioadest  domain  pos- 
sessed by  a  subject  was  his  right;  the  proudest  place  in  the  peerage  of 
Scotland,  and  precedence  as  hereditary  viceroy  of  the  nobility  of  Eng- 
land, was  his  inheritance. 

<'  A  bold  stroke  "  to  save  these  colonies  was  that  of  the  ofiScers  of 
State  when  they  determined,  under  ^the  shelter  of  the  ermine,  to  out- 
rage law  and  justice,  and  by  legal  forms  to  oust  Lord  Stirling  from  his 
just  rights. 


The 
his  serv 
refuses 
could  cl 
and  a  d 
dered  al 

This 

of  the  ii 

terized  a 

advised, 

summon 

reduce 

EX'chan 

Crown  h 

rested  fir 

protectinj 

done,  th( 

commem 

the  grour 

this  cours 

of  the  Ci 

mented,  i 

tleties  of  i 

Months 
on  increac 
vernment 
Lord  Stiri 
in  purpose 
of  the  Cn 
leaves  of 
proofs  in  I 
before  the 
were  stagj 
evidence  J : 

The  pri 
filed  in  coi 
from  the  C( 
ments,  alle 
filing  vvhic 


TRIAL   OP   LORD   STIRLING. 


15 


iccnserB  shall 
political  op- 

not  parallel. 
Blackwood, 
and  we  will 

He  claimed 
ent  over  JEng- 
ightest  jewels 
against  these 
rere  found  so 
jord  Stirling's 
lis  claims  was 
c  was  a  formi- 
sgnable.    His 
I  Government, 
dinisters,  Earl 
the  Colonies, 
nmittee  of  the 
I  Council.    It 
cedent.    Sixty 
'he  sympathies 
wledge  of  the 
IS  in  Scotland, 
arked  that  the 
le  bui^hers  of 
had  presented 
appear  at  the 
)ume  his  posi- 
about  to  call 
It  domain  pos- 
Itbe  peerage  of 
(bility  of  Eng- 

Ithe  officers  of 
[rmine,  to  out- 
lirling  from  his 


The  first  act  was  to  bring  a  suit  in  the  name  of  the  Crown  to  reduce 
his  services,  in  defiance  of  the  maxim  of  Scotch  law,  that  ''the  Crown 
refuses  no  vassal,"  and  the  well  settled  principles  of  law  that  ho  one 
could  challenge  the  service  who  did  not  claim  to  be  nearer  in  blood, 
and  a  direct  violation  of  the  charters  whereby  the  Crown  had  surren- 
dered all  right  to  the  territory. 

This  suit  was  broU|^ht  in  May,  1833.  From  that  remarkable  fear 
of  the  influence  of  the  Crown,  which  seems  to  have  palpably  charac- 
terized all  the  acts  of  his  counsel  in  Scotland,  Lord  Stirling  was  not 
advised,  as  he  should  have  been,  to  take  no  other  notice  of  the 
summons  of  reduction  than  pleading  that  the  Crown  had  no  right  to 
reduce  his  services.  The  opinion  expressed  by  the  Chancellor  and 
Ex-chancellors  afterwards  in  the  House  of  Lords,  in  1845,  that  the 
Crown  had  no  right  to  reduce  his  services,  shows  that  he  should  have 
rested  firmly  on  the  res  Judicatas  of  the  completed  services,  and  the 
protecting  clauses  of  the  charters  of  the  family.  If  this  had  been 
done,  the  Government  would  have  been  baffled,  and  the  proceedings 
commenced  by  its  servile  adherents  in  Scotland  would  have  fallen  to 
the  ground.  Most  unfortunately,  the  courage  or  sagacity  to  pursue 
this  course  was  wanting,  and  the  cause  went  on  according  to  the  will 
of  the  Crown.  Meanwhile  Lord  Stirling  was  doomed  to  be  *'  tor- 
mented, and  handed  over  to  chicaners,  who  deal  in  all  the  fatal  sub- 
tleties of  a  jurisdiction  worn  out  by  time  and  fallen  into  decay." 

Months  and  years  passed  away.  The  expenses  of  the  cause  went 
on  increasing.  Delays  succeeded  delays;  for  the  purpose  of  the  Go- 
vernment was  accomplished  by  keeping  the  cause  in  court.  But 
Lord  Stirling,  strong  in  the  knowledge  of  right,  tenax  propositi,  firm 
in  purpose  as  only  a  just  man  could  be,  and  fearless  of  the  tyranny 
of  the  Crown,  well  knowing,  too,  the  marvellous  traces  which  truth 
leaves  of  herself,  continued  his  researches  for  new  documents  and 
proofs  in  Ireland,  America,  and  France.  These  proofs  were  exhibited 
before  the  court,  and  were  so  overwhelming^  that  the  officers  of  Stale 
were  staggered.  As  Blackwood  acknowledges,  "the  documentary 
evidence,  if  genuine,  established  hi^  claims  irrefragably.^' 

The  principal  of  these  documents,  obtained  by  him  in  France,  was 
filed  in  court  by  Lord  Stirling  only  for  the  purpose  of  getting  an  order 
from  the  court  for  a  commission  to  France  to  verify  the  French  docu- 
ments, alleged  to  be  noviter  vcnicntes,  according  to  the  Scotch  law;  a 
(liiiig  which  obviously  could  only  be  done  in  the  country  where  they 


n\ 


m 


16 


TRIAL   OP   LORD   STIRLING. 


m:'' 


r  t 


:.fi!!' 


M 


i 


were  known,  and  ia  whose  language,  and  by  whose  countrymen,  they 
were  written. 

Again  and  again  did  Lord  Stirling  press  for  a  commission.  This 
reasonable  request  was  most  unjustly  refused;  for  the  officers  of  State 
believed  the  documents  genuine,  and  some  of  them  congratulated  Lord 
Stirling's  law  agents  for  having  such  irrafragable  proofs  of  their  client's 
rights.  .;,■  ■  .'''''  -■^-y-"' 

If  the  officers  of  State  had  seriously  doubted  the  genuineness  of  the 
French  documents,  they  would  have  submitted  them  to  an  exami- 
nation in  France,  where  the  imposture,  if  it  existed,  would  instantly 
have  been  exposed.  The  judges  in  the  Crown's  interest  evidently 
feared  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  deciding  against  Lord  Stirling 
in  the  face  of  these  overwhelming  proofs.  They  dared  not  risk  the 
the  result  of  a  commission  to  France,  where  the  authenticity  of  the 
documents  would  have  been  established.  The  officers  of  the  Crown 
ventured,  therefore,  upon  the  hazardous  step  of  endeavoring  to  make 
them  appear  forgeries.  In  order  to  build  up  and  fortify  this  shameful 
accusation,  they  pursued  a  series  of  singular  manoeuvres  which  we 
will  hereafter  expose,  and  finally  concluded,  after  much  hesitation,  to 
pursue  the  desperate  and  illegal  course  of  commencing  a  criminal  suit 
against  Lord  Stirling  for  the  forgery  of  documents  which  they  feared 
to  encounter  in  the  civil  court. 

When  this  course  was  resolved  upon,  the  officers  of  State  had  none 
of  the  obstacles  in  their  way  which  would  have  intervened  in  Eng- 
land, for  the  Lord  Advocate  of  Scotland  is  not  only  the  public  prose- 
cutor, but  has  the  power  which  in  England  and  this  country  belongs 
to  the  grand  jury.  Thus  any  one  can  be  put  on  his  trial  in  Scotland 
at  the  will  or  caprice  of  the  Lord  Advocate,  and  thus  the  innocent  ac- 
cused is  deprived  of  the  first  defence  against  the  tyranny  of  the  Crown. 

Lord  Stirling  was  warned  of  the  intention  of  the  officers  of  State, 
but  his  English  and  Scotch  legal  advisers  assured  him  that  it  was  im- 
possible that  the  judges  of  the  court  of  session,  having  never  pro- 
nounced a  judgment  for  or  against  his  rights,  would  permit  the  inter- 
vention of  a  criminal  action  before  they  had  themselves  come  to  a  de- 
cision. "The  English  laws,"  wrote  his  London  adviser,  "would 
afford  your  Lordship  efficacious  protection  under  such  circumstances." 
"  Our  laws,"  said  the  Scotch  agent,  "  have  provided  against  the  pos- 
sibility of  an  attempt  to  deprive  any  person  engaged  in  litigation  of  his 
liberty  at  the  instance  of  his  adversary.     Jt  is  what  they  do  not  tolerate 


under  a 

These 

was  res( 

conslitiii 

Mark 

outset. 

ments  in 

commiss 

practice 

suit,  inv( 

civil  cou 

otherwise 

kept  for  I 

for  Drepai 

investigat 

found,  bi 

of  seven  . 

petent  to  i 

age  and  p 

not  be  bro 

This  w 
quickly  fo 

On  the 

rested  in  h 

bailiffs  to  t 

mean  time 

counsel,  wl 

mission  the 

other  resou 

sanctioned  i 

proceedings 

What  fol 

by  counsel  > 

the  sheriff  o 

bimself  con 

and  althoug 

dignity.     A 

lefreshment 


■i 


TRIAL   OP   LORD   STrRUNO. 


17 


try  men,  they 

ission.  This 
kers  of  State 
atulated  Lord 
f  their  client's 

ineness  of  the 
to  an  exami- 
}uld  instantly 
jrest  evidently 
Lord  Stirling 
id  not  risk  the 
lenticity  of  the 
of  the  Crown 
/oring  to  make 
f  this  shameful 
vres  which  we 
h  hesitation,  to 
a  criminal  suit 
ch  they  feared 


under  any  circumgtnnces,  pending  a  suit  tmdecidedin  the  civil  court." 
These  words  of  the  Scotch  and  English  counsel  were  nil  vain.  It 
was  resolved  that  the  criniinnl  issue  should  proceed,  in  outrage  of  all 
constitutional  rights. 

Mark  how  oppression  is  stamped  on  these  proceedings  at  the  very 
outset.  A  commission  to  examine  (he  authenticity  of  French  docU' 
ments  in  France,  where  alone  they  could  be  properly  examined;  a 
commission  demanded  in  pursuance  of  the  laws  of  Scotland,  and  the 
practice  of  the  court  of  session,  is  refused.  The  Crown,  a  party  in  a 
suit,  involving  some  of  its  most  valuable  rights,  takes  the  cause  from  a 
civil  court,  and  to  throw  disgrace  upon  documents  which  it  cannot 
otherwise  impeach,  incriminates  them  in  a  criminal  court.  The  cause  is 
kept  for  months  in  the  civil  court  without  a  decision,  tliat  the  means 
for  nreparing  the  criminal  prosecution  may  be  fully  perfected.  The 
investigation  is  brought  from  Paris,  where  the  only  proofs  could  be 
found,  but  where  the  Crown  influence  could  not  prevail,  to  a  distance 
of  seven  hundred  miles  froui  the  place  where  the  only  witnesses  com- 
petent to  testify  in  such  case  resided,  and  whither  the  witnesses,  whose 
age  and  position  would  throw  the  most  light  on  this  investigation,  could 
not  be  brought. 

This  was  but  the  first  step  in  this  arbitrary  business,  which  was 
quickly  followed  by  other  outrages. 

On  the  morning  of  the  14th  February,  1839,  Lord  Stirling  was  ar- 
rested in  his  own  house  at  Edinburgh.  He  was  taken  by  the  sheriff's 
bailiffs  to  the  county  hall,  where  the  sheriff  holds  his  court.  In  the 
mean  time,  a  son  of  Lord  Stirling  had  communicated  with  two  of  his 
counsel,  who  indignantly  demanded  permission  to  see  him.  This  per- 
mission the  Crown  officers  refused;  and  Lord  Stirling's  counsel  had  no 
other  resource  than  to  protest  in  writing  against  a  tyranny  which  was 
sanctioned  neither  by  the  laws  of  the  country  nor  the  practice  in  criminal 
proceedings.  ,;   . 

What  follows  will  hardly  be  believed.  Lord  Stirling,  unsupported 
by  counsel  or  his  friends,  was  submitted  to  a  rigorous  examination  by 
the  sheriff  on  questions  prepared  by  the  Crown  counsel.  He  believed 
himself  compelled  to  answer  the  insidious  questions  of  his  adversaries, 
and  although  he  should  have  been  silent,  answered  with  boldness  and 
dignity.  At  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening  he  was  allowed  to  take  some 
refreshment,  and  after  two  hours  suspension  the  examination  proceed- 
•3 


18  TRIAL   OP  LORD   STtRLINO. 

c(),  and  was  continued  till  midnight,  when  lie  wn»  committed  (o  prison. 
Pour  days  afterwards  he  was  brought  again  to  court  at  ten  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  and  submitted  to  repeated  examinations,  which  were  con- 
tinued till  two  o'clock  on  the  following  morning. 

In  the  mean  time  the  sheriff's  oflicers  demanded  from  Lord  Stirling 
the  keys  of  his  cabinets,  and  a  written  authority  for  the  officers  to 
have  free  access  to  the  deed  chests,  boxes,  writing  desk,  and  other  re- 
positories in  his  house;  and  this  authority,  with  the  keys,  he  was 
compelled  to  give,  as  he  was  assured  that  otherwise  they  would  break 
open  the  doors  and  force  the  locks.  The  officers  of  the  law  ransacked 
the  house  of  their  victim  from  attic  to  cellar,  and  seized  all  papers 
which  they  thought  important;  another  act  directly  in  contravention 
of  the  constitution  and  laws,  which  secure  the  house  of  a  subject 
from  violation,  except  in  cases  of  treason. 

These  acts,  be  it  remembered,  occurred  in  the  year  1839,  on  British 
soil.  AH  that  was  wanting  of  the  inquisition  were  the  instruments  of 
physical  torture;  and  yet  no  indignant  press,  and  no  outraged  people, 
lifted  up  their  voices  against  this  oppression.  These  facts  have  been 
published  in  England,  and  have  never  been  denied.  The  words 
wrung  from  the  victim  by  the  inquisitors,  and  the  papers  seized  in 
his  house,  were  used  against  him,  though  happily  with  no  effect  on 
the  trial.  Even  the  casuistry  of  Blackwood  offers  no  excuse  for  this 
outrage;  although  acknowledging  the  fact,  it  mildly  speaks  of  the  pro- 
ceeding as  "wnt^swa/." 

The  motives  of  the  inquisitors  for  pursuing  this  desperate  course 
is  obvious.  The  conspirators  had  not  completed  their  plans  for 
the  accusation;  they  looked.for  some  acknowledgment,  some  con- 
tradiction or  confusion,  which  might  serve  their  purpose.  But  most 
signally  did  they  fail.  The  answers  were  all  consistent.  Nothing 
having  the  trace  of  a  suspicion  was  found  among  the  papers.  Who 
cannot  sefe  already  in  the  boldness  with  which  the  accused  submitted 
to  this  fearful  ordeal,  in  the  absence  of  any  contradiction  or  inconsist- 
ency in  his  answers  to  questions  insidiously  prepared  to  entrap  him, 
and  in  the  want  of  the  slightest  evidence  of  fraud  among  papers  and 
correspondence  accumulated  through  twenty  years,  during  which  he 
had  been  collecting  and  preparing  proofs  of  his  descent,  convincing 
proof  of  his  innocence? 

But  we  must  hasten  to  the  trial,  the  approaches  to  which  are  over- 
shadowed by  suspicions,  if  not  proofs,  of  such  foul  wrong. 


Sixd 

alleged 

suit,  w( 

him  kn( 

ments,  \ 

and  the 

directed 

Guillaui 

of  this 

1712,  ai 

Bishop  G 

as  these 

accused 

ence,  ten 

est  impor 

But  tal 

tion  and  I 

trinsic  evi 

of  the  difl 

there  was 

names  in 

the  genea 

from  the  1 

knowledg 

chancery 

the  forger 

achieved  t 

was  natun 

Whatrr 

wished  to 

writing  an 

was  alteate 

the  archive 

most  renov 

and  writing 

other  writit 

of  the  Pres 

colled  ion  o 

VVJiat  gf( 


TRIAL   OF  LORD  STIRLING. 


19 


led  to  prison, 
en  o'clock  in 
ich  were  con- 
Lord  Stirling 
Lhe  officers  to 
and  other  re- 
keys,  he  was 

would  break 
law  ransacked 
sed  all  papers 

contravention 
3  of  a  subject 

339,  on  British 

instruments  of 

jtraged  people. 

Facts  have  been 

1.     The  words 

ipers  seized  in 

th  no  effect  on 

excuse  for  this 

aks  of  the  pro- 

esperate  course 

[their  plans  for 

nt,  some  con- 

»se.     But  most 

ilent.    Nothing 

papers.     Who 

used  submitted 
ion  or  inconsist- 

to  entrap  him, 
Long  papers  and 
luring  which  he 

nt,  convincing 

Iwhich  are  over 


Six  documents — translations  of  which  will  bo  found  in  the  appendix  — 
alleged  to  have  been  produced  by  Lord  Stirling  as  evidence  in  his  civil 
suit,  wcro  charged  as  forgeries,  and  declared  to  have  been  uttered  by 
him  knowing  them  to  be  forged.  The  most  important  of  these  docu- 
ments, which  if  genuine,  contained  conclusive  proof  as  to  his  right, 
and  the  one  upon  which  the  attacks  of  his  adversaries  were  principally 
directed,  was  a  map  published  in  1703  by  the  celebrated  geographer 
Guillaume  de  L'Isle,  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences.  On  the  back 
of  this  map  are  several  original  documents,  dated  in  1706,  1707, 
1712,  authenticated  by  attestations  written  and  signed  by  Fiechier, 
Bishop  of  Nisraes,  and  by  Fenelon,  Archbishop  of  Cambray.  Now, 
as  these  documents  furnished  important  proof  of  the  descent  of  the 
accused  from  the  first  Earl  of  Stirling,  and  established  the  exist- 
ence, tenor,  and  limitations  of  the  missing  charter,  it  was  of  the  high- 
est importance  to  brand  them  as  supposititious. 

But  taken  as  a  whole  or  in  detail,  having  regard  both  to  the  execu- 
tion and  tenor  of  these  documents,  there  was  no  blemish,  error,  or  in- 
trinsic evidence  of  falsification.  Not  only  was  there  a  perfect  harmony 
of  the  different  parts,  and  a  perfect  imitation  of  various  writings,  but 
there  was  displayed  so  vast  a  knowledge  of  facts,  of  places,  of  real 
names  in  Scotland,  Ireland,  and  America;  such  an  acquaintance  with 
the  genealogy  of  many  great  families;  so  vast  an  erudition  extending 
from  the  literary  history  of  France  to  tiie  style  of  the  stonecutter;  such 
knowledge  of  geography,  heraldry,  and  even  the  barbarous  Latin  of 
chancery  writings,  that  it  was  a  miracle  surpassing  all  that  the  art  of 
the  forger  had  ever  attained  to,  for  one  or  many  falsifiers  to  have 
achieved  the  work.  Viewed  as  authentic,  the  execution  of  the  work 
was  natural;  viewed  as  false,  it  was  hardly  less  than  miraculous. 

W  hat  must  have  added  more  to  the  embarrassment  of  those  who 
wished  to  assail  these  documents  was,  that  the  authenticity  of  the 
writing  and  signature  of  Fenelon,  which  formed  one  of  the  documents, 
was  attested  at  Paris,  in  1837,  by  M.  Daunou,  the  keeper  general  of 
the  archives  of  the  kingdom,  a  member  of  the  Institute,  and  one  of  the 
most  renowned  scholars  of  Europe.  The  authenticity  of  the  signature 
and  writing  of  Fiechier,  Bisliop  of  Nieines,  and  of  Louis  XV,  and 
otlier  writings  on  the  n)ap,  was  attested  in  IS37  by  M.  Villenave,  one 
of  the  Presidents  of  the  Historical  Institute,  and  possessing  the  largest 
collection  of  autographs  in  France. 

WJiat  ground,  then,  had  the  olUccrs  of  State  on  which  to  rest  ihcij" 


i 


'^?!-i' 


21  > 


TKIAI,    OK    LOKIi    H'l'IULINli. 


■.i'^' 


attnck?  It  was  this,  and  this  nionc.  The  ninp  of  Cnnaila  was  pub- 
lislicil  ill  1703.  On  the  incriminated  copy  we  rend  "par  Gnillaumc 
de  L'lsle,  premier  geogrnphe  du  Roi,"  (by  Guillnumo  dc  L'lslc, 
first  geographer  of  the  King.)  Uut  the  title  was  not  conferred  on  the 
author  by  patent  until  1718.  Tfic  writings  of  Fenclon  and  Flechier, 
which  are  on  the  map,  bear  the  date  of  1707,  before  GuiHaume  dc 
L'IsIe  had  obtained  his  patent,  and  could  take  by  virtue  of  that  patent 
the  title  of  first  geographer  of  the  King.  Flechier  had  died  in  1710, 
and  Fenclon  in  1715;  therefore,  say  the  Scotch  lawyers  with  much 
apparent  force,  the  writings  purporting  to  be  those  of  Flechier  and 
Fenclon  must  have  been  forged.  We  have  endeavored  tu  state  with 
perfect  fairness  the  grand  charge  against  the  genuineness  of  the  docu- 
ments. Without  this  apparent  contradiction  in  the  date  of  the  patent 
of  j)c  L'lslc,  and  the  date  of  the  deaths  of  Flechier  and  Fenclon,  no 
one  would  have  dared  to  impeach  the  documents. 

The  only  testimony  impeaching  the  map  in  other  respects  was  that 
given  by  two  French  witnesses,  M.  Teulet,  one  of  the  secretaries  of 
the  archives  of  the  kingdom  of  France,  and  M.  Jacobs,  geographical 
engraver,  attached  to  the  Institute  of  France.  M.  Jacobs,  in  reply  to 
a  question  from  the  Crown  counsel,  (we  adopt  the  Crown  report,) 
says:  ''In  my  conscientious  belief,  1  feel  convinced  that  all  the  writings 
on  the  back  of  the  map  are  false;  and  this  I  infer,  not  merely  from  an 
examination  of  the  writings,  but  from  the  presence  of  the  title,  First 
Geographer  of  the  King,  which  proves  that  this  copy  could  not  exist 
till  after  1718,  and  in  consequence,  the  individuals  whose  names  these 
letters  bear,  could  not  write  in  170G  and  1707,  and  on  which  no 
writings  could  have  been  written  by  the  Archbishop  of  Cambray." 

He  also  observes  that  two  of  the  letters,  one  signed  Philip  Mallet, 
and  another  signed  John  Alexander,  seemed  to  have  been  written  in 
ink  composed  of  China  ink  of  yellow  and  of  red.  He  observes  under 
certain  words  a  reddish  tint  which  springs  out,  and  which  seems  to 
show  that  these  documents  might  "have  been  written  with  the  ink 
composed  of  China  ink,  yeliow  and  red;  such  ink  is  generally  com- 
posed to  imitate  ancient  writings,  and  in  the  use  of  which,  it  often 
happens  that  the  reddish  tint  springs  up  when  the  ink  is  dried."  He 
also  observes  that  the  map  is  spotted  in  different  places  with  a  reddish 
color,  and  that  the  mixture  made  use  of  in  writing  the  map  was 
splashed  upon  it. 

M.  Jacobs,  the  French  engraver;  also  teslificb  that  the  ink  on  the 


above  1 
is  not  ir 
talc  ink 
the  ink 
this  witi 

"Q- 

have  sp( 
date  the 

"Q- 

writings 

the  doci 

"A.- 

but  that 

Only 

ined.     H 

the  ink  i 

ander," 

"like  CO 

Mr.  S 

stated  th 

"They  i 

exactly  t 

We  ha 

the  spuri( 

It  mus 

pressed  a 

opinions, 

Hon  in  th 

letters  on 

We  sh 

destroy  th 

it,  upon  ) 

witnesses 

We  will  I 

the  unfaii 


♦Mallet 


Ilia  WM  pub- 
ir  Giiillnumo 
c  lie  L'lslc, 
ferreil  on  the 
ml  Flechier, 
Juillaume  ile 
)f  that  patent 
died  in  1710, 
s  with  much 
Flechier  and 
I  to  state  with 
I  of  the  docu- 
of  the  patent 
I  Fenelon,  no 

pccts  was  that 
secretaries  of 
,  geographical 
bs,  in  reply  to 
/rown  report,) 
ill  the  writings 
lerely  from  an 
the  title,  First 
;ould  not  exist 
te  names  these 
on  which  no 
lambray." 
hilip  Mallet, 
en  written  in 
(bserves  under 
lich  seems  to 
with  the  ink 
enerally  com- 
lich,  it  often 
dried."    He 
with  a  reddish 
the  map  was 

ink  on  the 


TRIAL   OP   LORD   STIRLING. 


21 


above  named  document  is  not  such  ink  as  is  generally  used.  <<It 
is  not  ink  which  has  turned  old.  I  think  it  must  be  composed  to  imi- 
tate ink  which,  when  turning  old,  assumes  a  brownish  tint,  and  that 
the  ink  used  here  is  for  the  purpose  of  imitation."  All  elicited  from 
this  witness,  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  writings,  is  as  follows: 

<<Q. — In  forming  a  judgment  from  ink,  and  the  appearance  you 
have  spoken  to,  should  you  say  that  these  are  genuine  writings  of  the 
date  they  bear,  or  false  writings? 

"yl. — I  should  think  them  false. 

'<Q. — Judging  from  the  ink  alone  and  the  appearance  of  these 
writings,  putting  all  other  evidence  aside,  would  you  pronounccfthat 
the  documents  are  true  or  false?* 

"il. — There  would  be  a  great  presumption  that  they  are  all  false; 
but  that  is  all." 

Only  two  Scotch  experts,  Mr.  Lizars  and  Mr.  Smith,  were  exam- 
ined. Mr.  Lizars  stated  that  there  was  '^a  great  resemblance  between 
the  ink  in  the  writing  signed  Ph.  Mallet  and  the  letter  signed  John  Alex- 
ander," the  two  referred  to  by  the  two  French  experts,  that  it  was 
»' like  common  water-paint." 

Mr.  Smith,  who  was  employed  to  make  fac-similes  of  the  map, 
stated  that  both  the  letters  of  Mallet*  and  Alexander  were  shaded. 
"They  resemble  each  other  a  good  deal  in  color,  but  they  are  not 
exactly  the  same.    There  is  a  reddish  line  through  them  both." 

We  have  given  here  all  the  reasons  and  evidence  urged  to  support 
the  spuriousness  of  the  multifarious  writings.        * 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  only  two  witnesses  on  the  trial  ex- 
pressed an  opinion  against  the  genuineness  of  the  writings;  and  these 
opinions,  it  will  be  seen,  rested  wholly  upon  the  apparent  contradic- 
tion in  the  dates,  the  color  of  the  ink,  and  the  red  sJiading  under  the 
letters  on  two  only  of  the  documents  impeached. 

We  shall  now  fully  explain  the  contradictions  of  the  dates,  and 
destroy  the  grand  objection,  the  "astounding  fact,"  as  Blackwood  calls 
it,  upon  which  the  accusation  rested.  We  will  establish  by  the  very 
witnesses  called  for  the  Crown  the  genuineness  of  the  documerils. 
We  will  show  by  testimony  judicially  taken,  but  suppressed  through 
the  unfaithfulness  or  timidity  of  Lord  Stirling's  counsel,  that  all  the 

*MaIlvt's  note  is  written  on  the  map  itself,  and  is  not  a  letter,  as  stated  in  report. 


ill 


22 


TRIAL   OF   LORD   STIRLING. 


m 


suspicious  marks  upon  the  documents  were  collusivcly  placed  there  to 
give  to  them  the  appearance  of  forgeries.  And,  finally,  wo  shall  prove 
tliat  tliis  map  of  Canada,  containing  on  its  back  the  various  writings 
im|)eached,  and  declared  to  have  been  fabricated  at  Paris,  in  1837, 
existed  with  the  same  autographic  documents  more  than  thirty  years 
before  that  date,  and  twenty  years  before  Lord  Stirling  asserted  his 
claims  in  Scotland. 

We  shall  not  only  refer  to  the  evidence  produced  at  the  trial,  but  to 
documents  and  evidence,  fully  verified,  obtained  since  the  trial,  and  to 
testimony  taken  before  the  trial,  and  suppressed  through  the  influence 
of  the  Crown.  To  understand  the  nature  and  value  of  the  latter  evi- 
dence, which  has  never  before  been  published ,  and  which  throws  such 
a  fiood  of  light  upon  this  mysterious  trial,  it  will  be  necessary  for  the 
reader  to  be  informed  as  to  the  nature  of  a  preliminary  judicial  exami- 
nation, unknown  in  our  law,  and  called  a  precognition.  <<This," 
says  Bell,  "is  an  examination  by  the  judge  ordinary,  or  justices  of  the 
peace,  where  any  crime  has  been  committed,  in  order  that  the  facts 
connected  with  the  oiTence  may  be  ascertained,  and  full  and  perfect 
information  given  to  the  public  prosecutor,  to  enable  him  to  prepare 
the  libel  and  carry  on  the  prosecution."  In  this  investigation  the  wit- 
nesses are  not  usually  put  on  oath,  and  they  must  be  examined  sepa- 
rately. Nor  is  the  moused  or  any  person  in  his  behalf  admitted  to  be 
present  when  the  precognition  is  taken.  The  testiYnony  written  down 
by  the  magistrate  is  also  called  a  precognition.  We  have  before  us 
copies  of  the  precognitions,  from  which  we  shall  quote,  on  stamped 
paper,  duly  certified. 

Proceeding  to  analyze  all  this  evidence,  we  shall  show: 

1st.  AU  the  documents  written  on  the  back  of  the  map  of  Canada 
tDere  believed  to  be  genuine  by  the  artists  in  Edinburgh  who  expressed 
any  opinion  upon  them. 

William  Home  Lizars,  a  celebrated  engraver  at  Edinburgh,  after 
having  examined  the  writings  with  great  care,  declares,  <4  thought 
them  genuine." 

"I  have  already  said  that  I  did  not  think  them  other  than  genuine. 
They  appeared  to  be  in  a  natural  hand."  (Examination  during 
trial.) 

Samuel  Lcith,  lilhographcr,  Edinburgh,  head  purUier  of  the  firm  of 
Leith  cand  Smith,  who  had  been  employed  by  thcoflicers  of  the  Crown 
to  make  a  facsimile  from  the  map  and  documents,  declares,  ''Gene- 


laced  there  to 
^c  shall  prove 
ious  writings 
aris,  in  1837, 
n  thirty  years 
^  asserted  his 

e  trial,  but  to 
le  trial,  and  to 

the  influence 
the  latter  evi- 
li  throws  such 
essary  for  the 
idicial  exaini- 
m.  "This," 
justices  of  the 

that  the  facts 
ill  and  perfect 
tini  to  prepare 
jation  the  wit- 
i;aniined  sepa- 
idmilted  to  be 

written  down 
lave  before  us 
on  stamped 


p  of  Canada 
oho  expressed 

nburgh,  after 
"1  thought 

ban  genuine, 
ation   during 

)f  the  firm  of 
of  the  Orowu 
arcs,  "Gcnc« 


TRIAL  OP   LORD  BTfRLINn.  i^ 

rally  the  writings  on  the  map  arc  free  and  unconstrained;  and  there  is 
nothing  in  the  writings,  as  they  appear  to  have  been  originally  execut- 
ed, to  induce  an  opinion  that  they  are  forgeries."  And  he  begins  by 
pointing  out  as  genuine  the  principal  document,  which  gives  an  analysis 
of  the  charter  of  Novo  damus  of  1639,  an  analysis  made  in  1706,  and 
signed  Ph.  Mallet.     (Precognition  signed  Samuel  Leith.) 

We  have  before  us  a  certificate  signed  by  H.  Maxwell  Inglis  that 
the  copies  of  precognitions,  from  which  we  quote,  were  reaa  over  to 
the  witnesses,  and  signed  by  them  since  the  trial;  so  that  they  retain 
their  opinions  despite  the  verdict  of  the  jury,  •  *    . 

2d.   The  writings  on  ifie  map  are  in  different  Imnds. 

This  is  an  important  fact  to  be  established,  because  Lord  Stirling 
was  accused  of  being  the  only  falsifier,  or  at  least  to  have  had  no  ac- 
complice but  a  woman — Mademoiselle  Le  Normand — from  whose  hands 
he  received  it. 

Archibald  Bell,  lithographer  and  engraver,  Edinburgh,  though  in 
the  interest  of  the  Crown,  declared  <Uhat  these  autographs  on  the  map 
of  Canada  appeared  to  be  written  by  separate  hands;  that  by  great 
study  any  one  person  might  by  possibility  have  written  the  whole;  but 
this  is  not  likely."    Precognition  not  signed  after  trial. 

John  Johnston,  engraver  and  printer,  equally  interested  in  sparing 
the  Crown  lawyers,  declares  "that  he  does  not  think  that  any  one  indi- 
vidual could  have  written  all  the  autographs  on-  the  map,  and  that 
Lord  Stirling  could  not  have  done  so." 

3d.^  The  writings  on  the  map  bear  no  resemblance  to  the  writing 
of  Lord  Stirling  or  t/iat  of  Mademoiselle  Le  Normand.    ^ 

Three  Scotch  experts  make  this  declaration  on  the  trial  and  when 
precognosed. 

William  H.  Lizars  interrogated  during  the  trial: 

Q,. — For  what  purpose  were  they  (the  documents  on  the  map) 
shou'n  to  you? 

A. — To  compare  them  with  Lord  Stirling's  handwriting  and  that 
of  Mademoiselle  Le  Normand,  and  see  if  I  could  trace  any  simi- 
larity between  their  handwritings  and  the  handwriting  of  the  docu- 
ments. 

Q. — Did  they  appear  to  be  in  either  of  the  handwritings  with 
which  you  compared  them? 

A. — The  papers  were    shown  to  mc  by  the    Procurator- Fiscal, 


m-' 


34 


TRIAL   OP   LORD    STIRLING. 


and  the  result  of  my  opinion  wns,  thot  the  handwritings  were  not  the 
same,  that  they  bore  no  resemblance  lO  each  other.  k. 

Archibald  Bell  in  his  precognition  declares,  that  he  exairiined  the 
writings  on  the  back  of  the  map,  and  compared  them  witli  Lord  Stir- 
ling's writing,  and  could  see  no  resemblance  between  them  and  his 
lordship's  writing. 
'    John  Johnston  makes  the  same  declaration. 

4th.  "j^'Ae  writing  of  FlechCer,  Bishop  of  Nistnes,  one  of  the  d^cu- 
metits  on  the  map,  is  proved  to  be  authentic. 

The  establishment  of  the  authenticity  of  a  single  writing  on  the  map, 
referring  to  other  writings,  establishes  the  gei^uineness  of  all. 

John  Johnson  says,  in  his  precognition,  '*the  Bishop  of  Nismes's 
autograph  appears  to  be  all  freely  written,  and  not  to  be  in  any  way 
painted,"  (referring  to  coloring  on  two  of  the  documents.) 

This  testimony  supports  that  of  two  other  experts,  William  Home 
Lizars  and  Samuel  Leith,  who  declare  that  they  believe  ''all  the  writ- 
ings genuine;"  and  is  confirmed  by  that  of  Archibald  Bell,  that  the 
autographs  appeared  to  be  written  by  different  hands. 

This  opinion  of  the  four  Kdinburgh  experts  is  fully  confirmed  by 
the  evidence  of  an  important  French  witness. 

The  Baron  Charles  Herald  de  Pages,  attached  to  the  historical  de- 
partment of  the  Royal  Library  in  Paris,  "charged  with  the  duty  of 
examining  manuscripts,"  being  interrogated  if  he  believed  the  auto- 
graph of  Flechier  genuine,  "I  am  certain  of  it."  *  *  *  "This 
writing  perfectly  corresponds  with  that  of  a  hundred  letters  of  that 
Bishop,  which  are  in  the  possession  of  my  uncle,  the  Mar<|bis  of 
Valfont." 

The  Crown  reports  assume  to  give  the  examination  of  the  witnesses' 
question  and  answer  in  toiidem  verbis.  But  in  the  report  now  before 
us  this  important  testimony,  so  material  for  the  prisoner,  which  alone 
was  sufficient  to  confound  the  charge  of  fabricating  the  documents  of 
the  map,  is  given  in  brackets,  as  follows:  ("Being  shown  the  map 
libelled  on,  the  witness  thought  the  writing  thereon  attributed  to  Fle- 
chier was  conformable  to  the  specimens  he  had  brought  with  him.") 

An  important  circumstance  deserves  to  be  noticed.  This  witness 
produced  a  great  number  of  undoubted  and  unsuspected  specimens  of 
Flechier 's  handwriting.  With  such  means  of  comparison  the  forgery 
of  a  document  of  over  a  hundred  words  could  have  been  completely 
exposed.     The  production  of  the  genuine  handwritings  of  Flechier  by 


1  were  not  (he 

sxairiined  llie 
it!i  Lord  Stir- 
them  and  his 


e  of  the  ddcu- 

g  on  the  map, 
all. 

>  of  Nismes's 
»e  in  any  way 

-) 

iTilliam  Home 

"all  the  writ- 
Bell,  that  the 

confirmed  by 


historical  de- 
the  duty  of 
ved  the  auto- 
♦  "This 
etters  of  that 
e  Mar^is  of 


* 


he  witnesses' 
rt  now  before 
which  alone 
documents  of 
>wn  the  map 
)uted  to  Fle- 
irithhim.") 
This  witness 
specimens  of 
the  forgery 
completely 
Flechier  by 


TRIAL   OP   LORD   STIRLING. 


25 


this  witness  gave  the  Crown  the  means^  and  the  only  one,  of  estab- 
lishing their  charge.  But  not  a  word  of  suspicion  as  to  the  writing  of 
Flechier  was  uttered  at  tUe  trial  by  the  Crown  witnesses,  lawyers,  or 
judges. 

The  witness,  Baron  de  Pages,  was  asked  by  one  of  the  judges^ 
(Lord  Moncrief,)  "If  you  were  assured  that  the  map  shown  you  did 
not  exist  till  1718,  would  you  still  say  that  the  writing  was  Flechier's?"^ 

^.—"Wherever  it  might  be  placed,  I  should  say  it  resembled 
the  other  specimens  of  the  handwritings  of  Flechier,  which  I  have 
under  my  eyes." 

"Let  me  remind  you,"«  said  the  Judge,  "that  Flechier  died  in  1710, 
and  this  paper  had  no  existence  till  1715." 

A. — "It  would  not  be  the  less  like." 

This  witness,  it  may  be  remarked,  testified  ^hat  he  had  not  known 
of  Lord  Stirling's  case  until  ten  days  before  he  left  Paris;  in  fact,  he 
was  a  total  stranger  to  Lord  Stirling  and  his  family. 

The  handwriting  of  Flechier  had  received  the  attestation  of  M. 
Villenave,  as  follows: 

"Cette  attestation  est  de  la  main  de  Esprit  Flechier,  Gveque  de- 
Nismes. 

"Paris,  Aout  2,  1837.  VILLENAVE.'* 

Thus  was  the  handwriting  of  Flechier,  upon  a  document  which 
referred  to  the  charter,  and  to  the  note  of  Mallet,  suspected  of  being- 
paintedj  established  to  be  authentic  by  the  testimony  of  four  Scotch 
and  two  distinguished  French  experts;  while  with  all  the  means  at 
hand  for  exposing  the  spuriousness  of  the  document,  if  it  had  beea 
forged,  not  a  shadow  of  suspicion  was  thrown  upon  it  at  the  triaL 
The  following  is  the  attestation  in  question,  (translate<l:) 

"I  have  lately  read  in  the  house  of  M.  Sartre,  at  Caveirnc,  the  copy 
of  the  charter  of  the  Earl  of  Stirling.  I  remarked  in  it  many  curious 
particulars,  mixed  up  with  a  great  number  of  uninteresting  details.  I 
therefore  think  that  we  ought  to  feel  the  greatest  obligation  to  M^ 
Mallet  for  having  enabled  the  French  public  to  judge,  by  the  above 
note,  of  the  extent  and  importance  of  the  grants  made  to  this  Scotch 
nobleman.  I  find  also  that  he  has  extracted  the  most  essential  clauses 
of  the  charter,  and,  in  translating  them  into  French,  has  given  a  very 
4  •  . 


,;''-l: 


urin 


TRIAL   OF   LORD   STIRLING. 


correct  version  of  them.     M.  Caron  St,  Eslienne  has  requested  me  la 
bear  testimony  to  this.     I  do  so  with  the  greatest  pleasure.       - 
.     (Signed)  "ESPRIT,  Bishop  of  Nistnes. 

"AtlNismes,  thisSdof  .lime,  1707."  ^ 

5th.   The  handwritiyig  of  Fenelon  is  proved  to  be  authentic. 

An  attestation  to  the  genuineness  of  (his  writing,  made  by  the  Keeper- 
General  of  the  Archives  of  France,  M.  Dannou,  a  member  of  the 
Institute  of  France-  -a  man  who  had  been  a  member  of  almost  every 
legislature  of  France  since  the  revolution,  and  whose  reputation  as  a 
scholar  is  European — ought  to  have  been  received  as  conclusive. 
^Nevertheless  the  Edinburgh  jury  did  not  appear  to  understand  the 
value  of  this  attestation,  although  it  was  confirmed  by  the  Scotch  wit- 
nesses, who  declared  that  all  the  writings  were  genuine. 

It  is  said  that  the  attestations  of  the  distinguished  men,  Daunou  and 
Villenave,  although  no  doubt  was  expressed  as  to  their  attestations, 
were  not  received  as  evidence  because  they  were  living,  and  could 
have  been  produced.  Good  care  had  been  taken,  by  refusing  the 
commission  to  verify  the  papers  in  France,  and  bringing  on  the  trial  in 
Edinburgh,  where  men  of  their  age  and  position  could  not  attend,  to 
deprive  the  accused  of  such  testimony  as  would  have  established  the 
case.  Still  this  testimony,  though  excluded  by  technical  rules  of  law, 
none  the  less  exists,  and  is  more  conclusive  as  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  French  documents  than  the  verdicts  of  a  hundred  Scotch  juries. 

6th.   The  handwriting  of  Louis  XV is  genuine. 

M.  Villenave  had  already  certified  the  authenticity  of  the  four  lines 
attributed  to  this  monarch.  The  Scotch  witnesses,  who  believed  all 
the  writings  were  genuine,  gave  to  this  attestation  a  force  which  Baron 
De  Pages  still  further  increased.  Being  interrogated  as  to  the  writing 
attributed  to  Louis XV,  he  answered,  "It  is  exactly  like  the  specimens 
of  his  writing  which  I  have  brought  with  me."  Tl.is  witness  then 
produced  notes  written  by  Louis  XV,  which  he  had  brought  from  col- 
lections in  Paris.  The  Crown  ofiicers  thus  had  the  means  of  demon- 
strating  beyond  a  question  the  spuriousness  of  this  writing  by  compari- 
son with  undoubted  originals;  but,  as  in  the  case  of  Flechier,  no 
attempt  was  made  to  expose  the  forgery  by  this  means.  With  proof 
so  conclusive  of  the  genuineness  of  three  writings  on  the  map,  which, 
in  fact,  established  the  genuineness  of  the  whole,  we  are  utterly  at  a 


*     ' 
\\%' 


loss  to  ( 
ings  for{ 
The 
by  supp 
cing  atti 
opportu 
cause. 
Pages, 
know  th 
life,  'bor 
he  comn 
his  billet 
the  fact  ] 
This  is  a 
7th.  J. 
dates. 

It  was 
the  word 
unfavora 
traces  of 
Mr.  Li 
"Would 
Mallet,  a 
color.) 

^.— "j 

almost  all 

John  J( 

form  of  tl 

date  they 

Archibi 

appear  to 

same  witr 

nients  a  c 

have  poin 

recent  dat 

the  date  o 

8th.  " 

left  Lord 

APPEARAS 


requested  me  la 

ure. 

9  of  Nismes. 

authentic. 
B  by  the  Keeper- 
member  of  the 
of  almost  every 
reputation  as  a 
as  conclusive, 
understand  the 
the  Scotch  wit- 

n,  Daunou  and 
leir  attestations, 
ling,  and  could 
)y  refusing  the 
g  on  the  trial  in 
d  not  attend,  to 
!  established  the 
pal  rules  of  law, 
genuineness  of 
Icotch  juries. 

■  the  four  lines 
10  believed  all 
e  which  Baron 
s  to  the  writing 

the  specimens 
is  witness  then 
•ught  from  col- 
ans  of  demon- 
tig  by  compari- 
if  Flechier,  no 
With  proof 

e  map,  which, 
are  utterly  at  a 


TRIAL   OP   LORD    STIRLING. 


ar 


loss  to  comprehend  the  verdict  of  the  jury  which  declared  the  writ- 
ings forgeries. 

The  jugglery  by  which  this  was  accomplished  can  only  be  explained 
by  supposing  that  the  jury  must  have  beeu  confounded  by  the  mena- 
cing attitude  and  pressure  of  the  presiding  Judge,  who  neglected  no 
opportunity  to  drop  his  poisonous  insinuations  against  the  prisoner's 
cause.  An  instance  occurred  in  the  course  of  the  examination  of  De 
Pages.  Addressing  this  witness.  Lord  Meadowbank  says,  ''Do  you 
know  that  Voltaire  says  liOuis  XV  never  wrote  but  two  words  in  hia 
life,'bon'and  'Louis?'  "  "Do  you  recollect  Voltaire  saying  that  when 
he  communicated  with  his  mistresses  lie  employed  a  secretary  to  write 
his  billets?"  The  witness  was  not  sufficiently  self-posseosed  to  reply,  as 
the  fact  is,  that  nothing  like  this  is  to  be  found  in  Voltaire's  writings? 
This  is  admitted  in  tlie  Crown  report. 

7th.  All  the  writings  on  the  map  are  of  the  epoch  of  their  different 
dates. 

It  was  attempted  on  the  trial  to  make  much  of  the  color  of  some  of 
the  words  and  letters.  Upon  this  the  French  witness,  Jacobs,  rested  his 
unfavorable  opinion .  The  Crown  officers  pretended  to  see  in  this  color 
traces  of  a  brush  and  a  palpable  proof  of  falsification  and  alteration. 

Mr.  Lizars,  one  of  the  Crown  witnesses,  questioned  by  a  jurymanr 
"Would  age  not  have  brought  those  two  documents,  the  one  signed 
Mallet,  and  the  other  signed  Alexander,  to  the  same  color?"  (Red 
color.) 

A. — "I  imagine  it  would.  1  know  that  writings  of  that  date  are 
almost  all  of  that  color." 

John  Johnston  says,  in  his  precognition:  "He  considers,  from  the 
form  of  the  letters  in  these  autographs,  that  they  were  written  of  the 
(late  they  bear,  and  not  of  a  more  recent  date." 

Archibald  Bell  declares,  "They  (the  documents  impeached)  don't 
appear  to  be  written  of  a  recent  date,  but  of  the  date  tbey  bear. ' '  The 
same  witness  declares,  "that  the  length  of  time  would  give  the  docu- 
ments a  cloudy  appearance;"  and  "he  could  from  their  appearance 
have  pointed  out  those  which  were  of  an  ancient  date  from  those  of  a 
recent  date,  (the  modern  attestations,)  although  he  had  not  been  told 
tlie  date  of  either. 

8th.  "  The  writings  on  the  map  have  been  painted  over  since  thejf 
left  Lord  Stirling's  possession,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  thb 

APPEARANCE  OF,  AND  HAVING  TIIEM  DECLARED,  FORGERIES." 


.„■, .;  s  •! 


28 


TRIAL   OF  LORD   STIRLING. 


f  jet  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  only  suspicious  circumstances  about 
•4he  writings  pretended  to  be  discovered,  independent  of  the  apparent 
contradiction  in  the  dates,  are  the  color  of  the  ink,  the  red  shading  of 
'<he  letters  on  iwo  of  the  writings,  and  the  splashing  of  coloring  matter 
•oa  the  map.  Taking  this  into  view,  the  testimony  which  we  shall 
now  give  is  of  the  utmost  importance. 

Samuel  Leith,  lithographer,  in  his  precognition  formally  declares: 

'*Map.  Mallet's  note.  His  opinion  is  this  note  is  genuine,  but 
thinks  that  some  person  has  gone  over  the  letters  in  it  with  a  brush  and 
coloring  matter  of  a  pink  and  brownish  tint.  This  is  evident  from  the 
coloring  matter  being  spotted  over  the  surface  of  the  map,  apart  from 
the  writing.  His  opinion  is  that  this  has  been  done  to  give  it  the  ap- 
jpearatice  of  a  forged  document.  This  could  not  be  done  by  a  forger, 
as  he  would  not  leave  so  many  indication^of  the  material  lie  had  been 
using  scattered  about.  If  it  had  been  done  by  him  accidentally,  he 
would  have  tried  some  means  to  have  got  these  effaced.  Moreover, 
some  of  the  lines  are  not  gone  over  in  this  manner  with  the  coloring 
matter,  which  corroborates  his  opinion,  that  some  one  must  have  gone 
over  the  writing  with  a  coloring  matter,  and  left  these  lines  intention- 
ally, to  give  it  the  appearance  of  an  ill  executed  forgery."  He  stated 
this  to  the  Crown  counsel,  and  was  asked  by  them  who  he  thought 
«auld  have  done  this;  and  he  said,  "  he  was  certain  from  the  manner 
ia  which  it  had  been  done,  that  it  must  iuive  been  done  by  the  ene- 
mies of  Lord  Stirling." 

Letter  of  John  Alexander.  The  same  remarks  apply  to  this  letter, 
but  not  in  such  a  strong  degree. 

*rNote  of  Bishop  of  Nismes.  There  has  been  also  tampering  with  this 
note,  by  the  letters  having  been  gone  over  here  and  there  with  a  darker 
ink,  and  that  this  has  been  done  some  time  after  the  original  writing. 
If  a  person  had  been  wishing  to  forge  this  document,  there  was  no  oc- 
casion for  him  to  have  gone  over  it  in  this  way,  which  was  the  very 
means  to  make  it  appear  a  forgery. 

"  Generally  the  writings  on  the  map  are  free  and  unconstrained;  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  writings,  as  they  appear  to  have  originally  existed, 
to  induce  an  opinion  that  they  are  forgeries.  Acting  on  this  opinion, 
he  caused  the  lithographic  copies  of  them  to  be  made  fac-similes  of  the 
writing  in  its  natural  state,  without  the  tampering  and  vitiation  abov. 
referred  to." 

Now,  in  view  of  this  grave  charge,  it  is  important  to  consider  in 


stances  about 
the  apparent 
3(1  shading  of 
jloring  matter 
jich  we  shall 

illy  declares: 
genuine,  but 
h  a  brush  and 
ident  from  the 
ip,  apart  from 
rive  it  the  ap- 
le  by  a  forger, 
il  he  had  been 
icidentally,  he 
:i.     Moreover, 
h  the  coloring 
lUst  have  gone 
ines  intention- 
."    Restated 
ho  he  thought 
m  the  manner 
le  by  the  ene- 

■/  to  this  letter, 

)ering  with  this 
with  a  darker 
ginal  writing. 

ere  was  no  oc- 
was  the  very 

nstrained;  and 
;inaUy  existed, 
1  this  opinion, 
;-similes  of  the 
ritiation  abov- 

to  consider  in 


TRIAL   OP   LORD    STIRLING. 


29 


whose  hands  this  map  had  been  placed  since  it  was  first  exhibited  by 
Lord  Stirling;  and  what  opportunities  this  important  witness  had  for 
forming  the  opinion  given  in  his  precognition.     Ever  since  November 
27,  1837,  the  day  on  which  Lord  Stirling's  agent,  Mr.  Lockhart, 
though  instructed  merely  to  show  the  document  and  demand  a  com- 
mission to  get  it  more  fully  proved  in  France,  had  allowed  it  to  be 
seized  by  the  court,  it  had  remained  in  the  custody  of  the  clerk  of  the 
court.     When  the  officers  of  State,  seeing  that,  if  acknowledged"  to  be  ** 
genuine,  nothing  remained  but  to  recognise  Lord  Stirling's  rights,  had 
determined  to  make  out  the  writings  to  be  forgeries,  the  map  was  taken 
out  of  court  and  ordered  to  be  lithographed.     What  object  could  there 
have  been  to  makefac  similes  of,  or  to  lithograph,  an  instrument  which, 
if  false,  would  show  itself  so  on  its  face,  except  to  secure  by  this  means 
the  opportunity  for  tampering  with  the  document  which  the  accusers 
had  so  vital  an  interest  in  destroying?    John  Smith  was  charged  with 
the  delicate  and  important  task  of  making  thefac  similes.     Six  months 
were  occupied,  or  pretended  to  be  occupied,  in  this  work.     To  remove 
all  appearance  of  suspicion,  the  court  directed  that  the  work  should  be 
done  in  the  house  of  xMr.  Mark  Napier,  a  respectable  advocate,  who 
was  directed  to  perform  the  impossible  duty  of  being  always  present 
with  the  lithographer.     The  work  was  in  the  lithographer's  hands 
some  months  before  Mr.  Leith  made  his  precognition.     Mr.  Leith  had 
every  opportunity  for  inspecting  it.    He  was  head  partner  of  the  firm 
of  Leith  &  Smith,  as  appears  by  Smith's  testimony  on  the  trial.     His 
statement  was  no  matter  of  opinion.     He  had  seen  and  examined  the 
map  in  its  original  state,  when  it  was  free  from  all  suspicious  marks, 
and  he  knew  that  it  had  been  falsified  and  tampered  with.     The 
charge  so  boldly  and  uncompromisingly  made  by  Mr.  Leith  in  his  pre- 
cognition, that  the  documents  had  been  tampered  with  by  "  the  ene- 
mies of  Lord  Stirling,  to  give  them  the  appearance  of  forgeries,"  was 
a  charge  against  Smith,  as  well  as  the  agents  of  the  Crown;  for  in 
their  hands  alone  had  the  documents  been  placed,  and  the  point  of 
Leith's  accusation  was  that  they  had  been  injured  in  Smith's  hands. 
This  charge,  so  disgraceful  to  the  Crown  agents,  was  well  known  in 
Edinburgh.    Hence  the  questions  put  Smith  on  the  trial  by  Mr.  Innes, 
Crown  counsel:  "You  were  employed  to  make  a  fac  simile  from  that 


map 


?" 


il.— "Yes, 


)» 


ii 


ni 


m 


w 


TRIAL   OP  LORD   STIRLING. 


f( 


Did  you  do  anythi 


to  injure  the  appearance,  or  texture,  or  color 
of  the  paper?" 

^._»No." 

Wliy  were  these  questions  asked,  unless  as  an  attempt  at  a  weak  re- 
sponse to  the  public  report,  that  the  map  had  been  altered  and  tam- 
pered with. 

With  so  grave  an  accusation  resting  against  the  Crown  agents,  an 
Accusation  which  they  well  knew,  why  did  not  the  counsel  save  the 
honor  of  the  Crown  by  confronting  Leith  and  Smith  in  the  witness  box? 
Why  did  not  the  prosecuting  otficers  prove  the  falsehood  of  this  accu- 
sation, which  had  excited  so  much  public  indignation,  by  calling  Mr. 
Mark  Napier,  at  whose  house  Smith  worked?  Was  it  not  because 
ithey  dared  not  enter  into  this  investigation?  Was  it  not  because  Mr. 
Murk  Napier  had  said  that  he  "no  longer  recognised  the  writings?" 

It  is  a  significant  fact,  that  Smith,  the  lithographer,  immediately 
after  the  trial  was  appointed  Crown  printer;  a  place  worth  -^2,500  a 
year,  and  never  before  conceded  to  a  lithographer.  The  public  indig- 
nation, expressed  by  the  papers  of  the  time,  showed  that  the  motive  for 
this  appointment  was  fully  understood. 

But  the  most  deplorable  and  suspicious  circumstance  connected  with 
the  whole  trial  is  the  almost  inconceivable  fact  that  Samuel  Leith,  who 
was  in  attendance  in  court,  and  whose  name  we  find  enrolled  among 
the  defender's  witnesses,  was  not  called  by  the  defender''s  counsel. 
The  testimony  of  the  witness,  who  would  have  exposed  the  nefarious 
conspiracy,  who  would  have  turned  the  charge  of  fabrication  from  the 
accused  to  the  accusers,  was  withheld  to  "5are  the  honor  of  the  CrtmUy 
€ompromised  by  its  agents.^'  This  was  Lord  Stirling's  counsel's  only 
excuse  for  his  conduct.  It  was  reiterated  by  Lord  Meadowbank,  in  ex- 
tenuation of  his  course,  and  repeated  again  in  London  as  a  reason  for 
the  deplorable  excesses  the  Government  had  tolerated! 

But  this  was  not  the  only  case  of  the  suppression  of  testimony  for  the 
defender.  Archibald  Bell,  John  Johnston,  John  Skirving,  all  scientific 
witnesses,  who  would  have  established  the  genuineness  of  the  docu- 
ments and  map,  all  of  whom  were  in  attendance,  were  not  called. 
Indeed,  of  tioenty-one  witnesses  for  the  defence,  sir  cL'y  were  exam- 
ined. What  can  be  hoped  for  in  the  best  of  causes  when  the  interests 
of  State  demand  a  condemnation;  when  the  accused,  deprived  of  the 
ordinary  defences  enjoyed  by  a  common  felon,  has  only  his  innocenc(j 
and  right  to  shield  him  from  the  violence  of  power? 


naire. 


TRIAL   OP   LORD   STIRLING. 


31 


re,  or  color 


a  weak  re- 
el and  tam- 

agents,  an 
sel  save  the 
vitness  box? 
if  this  accu- 
calling  Mr. 
not  because 
because  Mr. 
'ritings?" 
mmediately 
h  J'2,500  a 
)ublic  indig- 
le  motive  for 

inected  with 

Leith,  who 

>lled  among 

r's  counsel. 

le  nefarious 

on  from  the 

the  Crown, 

nsel's  only 

)ank,  in  ex- 

a  reason  for 

nony  for  the 
all  scientific 
the  docii- 
not  called, 
were  exam- 
the  interests 
rived  of  thf 
s  innocence 


A  convincing  proof  that  tliQ  charges  of  Leith  are  true  is  the  fact,  that 
the  officers  of  State  and  the  court  dare  not  allow  the  map  to  sec  the 
light.  When  the  civil  suit  in  whicli  the  map  with  its  documents  was 
filed  WPS  closed;  Lord  Stirling  was  entitled  to  reclaim  his  documentary 
proof.  He  still  desired  to  establish  by  further  and  cumulative  evidence 
the  authenticity  of  his  documents.  He  has  applied  for  them  in  vain. 
The  court,  with  that  usurpation  of  power  which  they  have  again  and 
again  displayed  in  these  proceedings,  specially  decreed  "the  produc- 
tions in  this  process  to  remajn  in  the  hands  of  the  clerk,  and  not  to  be 
borrowed  by,  or  returned  to,  the  defender  till  further  order." 

9th.  "  The  map  was  of  the  date  which  it  bears,  1703.  This  is  not 
contradicted  by  the  interpolation  of  the  words,  ^^ Premier  Geographe 
du  Roi.^^ 

The  point  made  out  by  the  prosecution  was,  that  De  L'Isle  did  not 
receive  this  title  till  1718.  The  map  bearing  this  title  could  not  have 
existed  till  1718.  As  Fenelon  and  Flechier  died  before  that  time,  the 
documents  on  the  map,  purporting  to  be  written  by  them,  must  have 
been  forgeries.  Herein  lay  the  whole  foundation  of  the  impeachment 
of  the  writings  upon  the  map.  It  is  plain  that  the  French  witnesses 
based  the  opinions  which  they  expressed  at  the  trial  wholly  on  this  ap- 
parent inconsistency.  To  explain  this,  we  will  present  some  facts  not 
brought  out  on  the  trial. 

Guillaume  de  L'Isle  commenced  his  chief  publications  in  1700,  and 
continued  them  to  1726.  It  was  common  at  that  time,  as  at  present, 
under  monarchies,  for  individuals  to  assume  or  obtain  special  titles, 
such  as  "Geographe  ordinaire"  to  the  King,  "Maitre  d'Hotel  ordi- 
naire," "Medecin  ordinaire."  Under  Louis  XIV,  there  was  a 
''Premier  Aumonier,"  "Premier  Maitre  d'Hotel,"  "Premier  Gentil- 
homme,"  "Premier  Medecin,"  "Premier  Peintre,"  and  soon  after 
''Premier  Geographedu  Roi." 

De  L'Isle  first  called  himself  simply  "Geographe."  He  so  soon 
eclipsed  all  rivals,  that  he  was  named  in  1702  "Member  of  the 
Academy  of  Sciences."  A  little  later,  he  gave  lessons  in  geography  to 
the  young  Prince,  afterwards  Louis  ^V;  and  on  the  26th  of  August, 
1718,  received  a  patent,  conferring  upon  him  a  pension  of  1200  livres,. 
with  the  title  of  "Premier  Geographe,"  which  had  not  hitherto  been 
conferred  in  so  formal  a  manner. 

There  is  conclusive  prcjf  that  the  title  of  "Premier  Geographe  du. 
Roi,"  was  borne  by  him  a.  an  earlier  date  than  1718. 


U 


I 


m 


m 


■Vi" 


32 


TRIAL   OF   LORD    STIRLINO. 


m 


At  the  library  of  St.  Genevieve,  in  Paris,  is  a  rare  work,  entitled 
''Memorials  of  the  King's  Commissioners,  «kc.,  upon  the  possessions 
and  respective' rights  of  the  two  Crowns  in  America,  <fcc.,  published  at 
Paris  in  1755."  On  page  C2,  vol.  1,  of  this  work,  occurs  the  follow- 
ing passage  on  the  subject  of  four  French  maps,  presented  against  the 
pretensions  of  England  to  establish  the  ancient  limits  of  Acadia. 

"The  two  fust  are  those  of  M.  de  L'Isle;  the  one  a  map  of  North 
America,  published  in  1700,  and  the  other,  a  map  of  Canada  or  new 
France,  published  ill  1703." 

Farther  on,  at  page  64,  is  the  following: 

•'It  appears  that  the  first  of  the  said  maps  of  Sieur  de  L'Isle,  is  one 
which  was  particularly  corrected  by  himself,  and  that  it  was  based  upon 
the  observations  of  the  Royal  Academy,  of  which  he  was  one  of  the 
members  at  the  publication  of  the  latter,  as  well  as  "Premi^^r 
Geogkaphe  du  Roi,"  (dont  il  etait  un  des  membres  a  la  publication 
de  sa  derniere,  ainsi  que  "Premier  Geographe  du  Roi.")  These  ex- 
tracts are  certified  by  the  administrator  of  the  library  of  St.  Genevieve. 

Who,  then,  can  doubt  that  De  L'Isle,  who  in  1702  "had  eclipsed 
all  rivals,"  and  who  in  1703  was  a  member  of  the  Academy  of  Sci- 
ences, who,  at  that  time,  was  always  consulted  by  the  old  King,  and  was 
employed  as  geographer  at  court,  who  was  afterwards  the  instructor  of 
the  young  Prince  in  geography,  as  may  be  seen  by  an  historical  memoir 
by  Freret,  was  in  fact  authorized  to  call  himself  First  Geographer  of 
the  King?  This  is  not  contradicted,  but  rather  confirmed,  by  the  pa- 
tent of  1718.  It  is  carefully  kept  out  of  view  by  Blackwood,  as  it  was 
at  the  trial,  that  this  patent  was  given  to  grant  him  a  pension  of  1200 
livres,  and  for  this  reason  the  title  which  he  long  enjoyed  was  more 
formally  conferred. 

We  have  before  us  an  original  letter  of  M.  Villenave,  in  which  he 
says:  "There  are  extant  in  France,  in  England,  and  most  probably  in 
the  libraries  of  Edinburgh,  mapsof  Guillaume  de  L'Isle,  of  a  date  an- 
terior to  1718,  and  upon  which  Guillaume  de  L'Isle  takes  this  double 
title,  "De  I'Academie  des  Sciences  et  Premier  Geographe  du  Roi." 
1  have  in  my  cabinet  a  very  considerable  number  of  these  maps. 
Those  of  Canada,  1703;  of  Paraguay  and  Chili,  1703;  of  Peru, 
Brazil,  and  the  country  of  the  Amazons,  1703;  India  and  China,  1705; 
Tarlary,  1706;  Barbary,  Nigritia,  and  Guinea,  1707.  Well,  upon 
all  these  maps  anterior  to  1718,  are  these  words  engraved,  "Par  GuiL- 


Inume 
Roi." 

Ther 
and  oth 
title  wh 
after  mt 
lisher  ki 
while  th 
again,  o 
have  be< 
nesses,  a 
publishe 
Leith,  tf 
cognitior 
He  says  i 
publishei 
1703  on 
possible  0 
fifteen  ye 
to  maps, 
graphical 
space  of  t 
There 
polated,  f 
which  he 
ada  has  oi 
Canada  o 
beautifull; 
maps  in  r 
such  a  ma 
which  he 
The  th 
absurd  by 
maps  of  r 
question; 
maps,  the 
subsequeni 
ographer  o 
lille."     D 


urk,  entitled 
J  possessions 
published  at 
9  the  foilow- 
l  against  the 
of  Acadia, 
lap  of  North 
nada  or  new 


j'Isle,  is  one 
,s  based  upon 
as  one  of  the 

a  publication 
)    These  ex- 
t.  Genevieve. 
«had  eclipsed 
demy  of  Sei- 
zing, and  was 
p  instructor  of 
orical  memoir 
eographer  of 
d,  by  the  pa- 
ood,as  it  was 
ision  of  1200 
ed  was  more 

,  in  which  he 
!t  probably  in 
of  a  date  an- 
is  this  double 
pheduRoi." 

these  maps. 

3;  of  Peru, 
|China,  1705;. 

Well,  upon 

,  "ParGuiL- 


TPIAL  OP   LORD   STIRUNO. 


33 


Inume  de  L'lale,  de  I'Acndemie  des  Sciences,  Premier  Geographe  dn 
Roi." 

There  are  some  of  the  maps  of  the  date  of  1703  without  thi?  title, 
and  others  with  it.  It  is  probable  that  De  L'Isle  placed  ihe  additional 
title  which  he  was  allowed  to  assume  upon  maps  struck  off,  or  printed 
after  maps  of  the  spme  date  had  been  issued.  Every  artist  and  pub- 
lisher knows  that  changes  and  insertions  are  frequently  made  on  maps 
while  the  original  date  is  preserved.  The  old  plates  would  be  used 
again,  or  as  an  Edinburgh  witness  offered  to  do,  the  engraving  could 
have  been  made  upon  the  map  itself.  The  theory  of  the  French  wit- 
nesses, and  of  the  Crown  lawyers,  that  a  map,  which  they  say  was  not 
published  till  1718,  could  bear  the  date  of  1703,  is  absurd.  Mr. 
Leith,  the  lithographer,  shows  the  absurdity  of  that  theory  in  his  pre- 
cognition. *<Hi8  opinion  is,  that  the  map  was  thrown  off  in  1703. 
He  says  it  would  be  perfect  foHy,  and  he  could  not  believe  that  the 
publisher  of  the  map  would  throw  it  off  in  1718,  with  the  addition  of 
1703  on  it.  Every  publisher  is  anxious  to  have  the  most  recent  date 
])ossible  on  his  works,  and  would  not  throw  off  impressions  with  a  date 
fifteen  years  preceding  on  them.  This  remark  applies  more  especially 
to  maps,  and  to  the  map  in  question,  being  of  a  country  where  geo- 
graphical discoveries,  in  all  probability,  would  have  been  made  in  the 
space  of  fifteen  years." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  line  Premier  Geographe,  &c.,  was  inter- 
polated, probably  by  De  L'Isle  himself,  after  he  had  assiuned  the  title 
which  he  took  upon  himself  in  1703.  Theincriminaled  map  of  Can- 
ada has  one  peculiarity  which  has  not  been  observed  on  other  maps  of 
Canada  of  the  same  date.  The  engraving  or  heading  of  the  map  is 
beautifully  painted  or  illuminated,  which  is  only  observed  on  ancient 
maps  in  royal  keeping,  or  of  which  particular  care  is  taken.  Upon 
such  a  map  especially  would  De  L'Isle  have  placed  the  highest  title 
which  he  had  a  right  to  assume,  to  give  the  map  the  greater  authority. 

The  theory  that  the  map  was  not  in  existence  till  1718  is  proved 
absurd  by  the  French  witness  Jacobs.  He  acknowledges  that  many 
maps  of  De  L'Isle  have  interpolations,  like  the  one  on  the  map  in 
question;  but,  says  he,  "  this  interpolation  only  takes  place  on  those 
maps,  the  date  of  which  is  anterior  to  1718.  In  the  maps  published 
subsequenUy  to  1718,  there  is  no  interpolation.  The  words  first  ge- 
ographer of  the  King  are  always  regular  with  the  other  part  of  the 
title."     Does  not  this  prove  that,  whenever  there  are  interpolations, 


5 


i  i 


11 


84 


TRIAL   OF    I.onn    STIUMNO. 


'  •' 


■.  .■.■:V.- 


lliey  miisf  liave  been  made  prior  fo  1718?  Would  the  engraver  have 
taken  the  trouble  to  interpolate  awkwardly  a  title  on  the  map,  when 
at  the  same  lime  he  had  a  plate  containing  the  words  first  geographer, 
&c.,  engraved  regularly  with  the  other  parts  of  the  title?  ' 

The  mismanagement  of  the  defence  was  equally  displayed  in  this 
as  in  other  parts  of  the  trial.  The  charge  of  falsification  had  no  sup- 
port but  in  the  assertion  that  it  was  impossible  to  have  the  four  words, 
Premier  Geographe  du  Roi,.  interpolated  otherwise  than  by  the  original 
copper  plate  of  the  map.  If  this  were  possible,  any  possessor  of  the 
map  could  have  procured  the  interpolation  on  the  map  itself  before  or 
after  1718.  We,  for  ourselves,  believe  thai  the  interpolation  was  made 
by  De  L'Isle  himself  on  the  original  copper,  on  a  fresh  series  struck 
off  by  him  soon  after  assuming  the  title,  by  which  he  became  known 
in  1 703,  But  if  this  point  could  have  been  proved,  the  position  of  the 
Crown  would  have  been  untenable.  It  certainly  should  have  been 
urged  by  the  defence. 

John  Sku'ving,  punch-cutter  and  engraver,  at  h«8  precognition  pro- 
duced "  a  plate  and  three  copies  of  a  modern  map  of  Turkey  and 
Asia,  in  the  titles  of  two  of  which  he  has  inserted  the  last  line  from  the 
aforesaid  plate,  as  will  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  these  two  maps,  in 
which  the  insertion  is  made  with  the  remaining  one.  In  like  manner, 
he  is  of  opinion  that  it  was  quite  ponible  for  Guillaume  De  L'Isle  to 
have  made  the  insertion  of  Premier  viJeographe  du  Roi  in  any  of  his 
maps  after  the  impression  had  been  thrown  off,  without  throwing  off 
an  entire  impression  of  the  map.  And  if  he  had  had  a  number  of  his 
maps  of  1703,  or  any  other  date  actually  thrown  off,  it  would  have 
been  a  saving  of  expense  to  him  to  have  put  the  addition  of  this 
title  on  them  in  this  manner,  or  he  might  have  put  it  on  any  single 
map  if  he  had  been  requested,  or  had  occasion  to  do  so.  The  inser- 
tion could  also  have  been  made  in  another  and  a  very  simple  form, 
and  which,  he  thinks,  no  French  artist  or  engraver  could  be  ignorant 
of,  especially  an  extensive  publisher  of  maps,  such  as  De  L'Isle,  and 
that  is  by  means  of  an  operation  of  tissue,  which  he  can  explain  if 
necessary. 

(Signed)  JOHN  SKIRVING." 

This  witness,  though  in  attendance,  was  not  called! 

John  Johnston,  Crown  witness,  who  had  expressed  an  opinion  in 
his  precognition  that  the  words  were  inserted  on  the  paper  itself  with- 
out the  aid  of  plate,  was  not  called! 


engraver  have 
le  map,  when 
-St  geographer, 
7 

splayed  in  this 
)n  had  no  sup- 
[he  four  words, 
by  the  original 
303sessur  of  the 
I  itself  before  or 
ation  was  made 
ah  series  struck 
became  known 
e  position  of  liie 
ould  have  been 

(recognition  pro- 
of Turkey  and 
ast  line  from  the 
;se  two  maps,  in 
In  like  manner, 
ne  De  L'Isle  to 
oi  in  any  of  his 
out  throwing  off 
a  number  of  his 
*,  it  would  have 
addition  of  this 
t  on  any  single 
so.     The  inser- 
ry  simple  fonn, 
)uld  be  ignorant 
De  L'Isle,  and 
can  explain  if 


KIRVING. 


n 


d  an  opinion  in 
aper  itself  witli- 


TRIAL   OB'   LORD    STIHLINCi. 


35 


No  one  of  the  Scotch  witnesses  was  examined  upon  this  important 
point  which  formed  the  basis  of  the  accusation. 

Jacobs,  the  French  engraver,  thought  it  could  be  done,  but  doubted 
if  any  method  was  known  at  the  period  of  the  map.  Yet  there  arc 
whole  maps  of  the  time  traced  so  as  to  look  like  engravings;  and  all 
the  geographers  consulted  in  Paris  by  Jjord  Stirling,  stete  the  operation 
to  be  both  frequent  and  easy,  and  to  their  knowledge  of  ancient  date. 

Our  readers,  who  have  followed  us  thus  far,  must  have  seen  how 
signally  the  officers  of  the  Crown  failed  to  prove  the  fabrication  of  the 
documents  impeached;  and  they  must  also  have  3een  how  completely 
the  prosecution  would  have  been  overwhelmed,  if  the  counsel  for  the 
defence  had  dune  their  duly.  But  it  was  from  no  want  of  zeal  or  in- 
dustry, or  from  any  niggardliness  in  the  expenditure  of  money,  that 
Crown  agents  failed  to  make  out  a  belter  case.  As  we  shall  have  no 
farther  occasion  to  discuss  the  testimony  given  in  this  part  of  the  case, 
we  will  pause  for  a  moment  to  consider  the  character  of  tlie  witnesses 
produced  by  the  Crown.  Here  we  shall  depart!,  somewhat  from  the 
rule  to  which  we  have  thus  far  rigorously  adhered,  of  stating  nothing 
for  which  we  had  not  full  documentary  proof.  But  the  statements  we 
shall  now  make  have  been  published  in  England,  and  have  never 
been  denied. 

When  Messrs.  Innes  and  Mackenzie,  the  Crown  agents,  who  had 
proceeded  to  Paris  to  get  up  their  case,  "  found  it  impossible  to  corrupt 
Messrs.  Daunou  and  Villenave,"  (Mr.  Villenave's  own  words  now  be- 
fore us,)  and  were  at  a  loss  how  to  proceed,  they  placed  their  desperate 
case  in  the  hands  of  a  man  more  notorious  in  the  annals  of  police  and 
crime  than  any  other  in  Europe,  th«  infamous  Vidocq.  He  made  up 
for  them  the  amalgamation  of  scientific  and  ignorant  witnesses;  the 
two  first,  Teulet  and  Jacobs;  the  three  latter,  a  cobbler,  a  hawker,  and 
a  street  prostitute,  who,  under  the  care  of  a  French  policeman,  figured 
for  some  weeks  in  Edinburgh. 

The  "  eminent  "  M.  Teulet,  as  Blackwood  calls  him,  was  picked 
out  of  the  archives  of  which  Daunou  was  chief.  His  testiutoiiy,  weak- 
ened beforehand  by  the  counter  aileslation  of  his  chief,  was  con)pletely 
neutralized  by  that  of  the  Baron  de  Pages,  who  held  an  official  posi- 
tion in  the  Royal  Library,  which  gave  to  his  opinion  an  authority  at 
least  equal  to  that  of  M.  Teulet.  Both  the  French  witnesses  for  the 
Crown  threw,  themselves  at  once  on  the  dubious  quibble  of  the  offi- 
cers of  State,  that  the  writings  could  not  have  been  placed  on  the  map 


n 


¥'' 


:\6 


TUI.VL    OK    LUKl)    HTIKLINfi. 


iiiiiil  after  Aui^utit,  1718;  when  that  falls  to  the  ground,  tlieir  testimony 
I'allu  with  it. 

Teulet,  we  nrc  assured,  felt  that  he  hud  comproniiucd  his  position 
by  lending  himself  so  freely  to  the  Crown  agents,  and  in  a  letter,  ad- 
drcHsed  from  Edinburgh  to  his  biother,  stated  his  surprise  at  finding 
that  Lord  Stirling,  wtio  hud  been  represented  to  him  in  the  blackest 
colors,  was  a  most  honorable  man;  and  he  further  expressed  doubts  and 
misgivings  as  to  his  own  position  in  the  affair. 

Of  the  other  French  witnesses,  the  cobbler,  the  hawker,  and  the 
prostitute,  litlle  need  be  suid.  They  were  all  under  the  surveillance 
of  the  French  police  for  crimes  conmiitted  by  them,  and  were  accom- 
panied to  Ediiil)urgJi  by  a  police  oflicer,  who  had  strict  orders  never  to 
lose  sight  of  them.  The  hawker  was  picked  out  of  the  street,  set  up 
in  a  handsome  shop  as  a  seller  of  gentlemen's  hats  and  caps,  imtil  the 
trial  was  over,  when  he  returned  to  his  old  trade  of  selling  books, 
prints,  &.C.,  luuler  the  wall  of  an  hotel  on  the  Quai  Voltaire.  He  was 
to  swear  that  he  sold  a  map  or  maps  of  De  L'Isle  to  some  one  in  1S37. 
In  his  precognition  he  insisted  that  it  was  in  1827  that  he  sold  it.  He 
wanted  further  diilling.  When  asked  at  the  trial  if  Lord  Stirling  was 
the  man,  he  answered  "No,"  and  deecribed  quite  a  different  person. 

The  cobbler  and  the  girl  were  to  swear  to  seeing  Lord  Stirling  come 
every  night  to  Mud'elle  Lenormand's  house  in  the  rue  de  Tournon. 
The  cobbler  swore  with  a  vengeance,  for  he  declared  he  had  seen  Lord 
Stirling  at  I  he  house  referred  to  almost  every  night  from  May  to  No 
vembcr,  1837.  This  he  repeated  and  insisted  on.  As  it  happened,  in 
i'nct,  Lord  Stirling  left  Paris  early  in  August,  was  present  and  voted 
fXL  the  election  of  Scotch  peers  on  the  35th  of  that  month,  and  con- 
tinued to  reside  in  Edinburgh  until  after  the  trial. 

The  girl  was  not  called,  because,  having  since  her  arrival  followed 
her  vocation  by  committing  a  robbery  in  the  house  where  she  lodged, 
the  Crown  counsel  thought  it  prudent  to  withdraw  her.  The  Crown 
agents  compounded  the  felony,  and  got  her  off.  And  as  they  feared 
that  some  proceedings  might  be  commenced  against  the  whole  of  their 
witnesses,  ihey  were  all  summarily  ordered  away  before  the  trial 
actually  leiininaled. 

Lord  Stirling  brought  over  his  landlord,  Mr.  Benner,  an  English 
professor,  who  kept  an  establishment  for  education,  to  prove  that  Lord 
Stirling  was  never  out  but  once  in  an  evening,  and  then  to  take  tea 
vvith  some  friends  in  the  neighborhood*     And  that  so  far  from  going  to 


leir  testimony 

cd  his  position 
»  a  letter,  ad- 
)ri8e  ol  finding 
n  the  blnckesl 
led  doubts  and 

iwker,  and  the 
B  surveillance 
d  were  acconi- 
orders  never  to 
3  street,  set  up 
caps,  until  the 
selling  books, 
aire.  He  was 
e  one  in  1837. 
le  sold  it.  He 
rd  Stirling  was 
ferent  person. 

Stirling  come 
e  de  Tournon. 

had  seen  Lord 
»m  May  to  No 

happened,  in 
sent  and  voted 
onth,  and  con- 

rrival  followed 
ire  she  lodged, 
The  Crown 
as  they  feared 
whole  of  their 
tfore   the   trial 

er,  an  English 
rove  that  Lord 
len  to  take  tea 
from  going  to 


TRIAL   OK    L0R1>    BTIULINO. 


87 


the  rue  de  Tournon  to  aid  in  forging  a  paper,  he  was  rarely  ever  ab- 
sent long  enough  from  the  houae  to  admit  of  his  going  to  that  distant 
quarter  of  the  city.  We  have  the  precognition  and  affidavit  of  Mr. 
Benner  which  establish  all  these  facts.  But  with  their  usual  tender- 
ness for  the  Crown  cause,  Lord  Stirling's  counsel  refused  to  call  this 
witness. 

These  disreputable  witnesses  were  furnished  by  Vidocq,  and  paid — 
as  was  drawn  out  on  the  trial — 1,000  franks  a  month,  besides  all  their 
expenses,  (the  cobbler  had  worked  the  year  before  for  200  franks  a 
year,)  were  dressed  up  for  the  occasion,  paraded  about  the  town,  taken 
to  the  theatre,  invited  by  ladien  of  the  Crmmi  lamyera  to  tea  parties, 
all  the  time  accompanied  by  the  police  agent. 

lOth.  The  incriminated  map  and  writings  bear  intrinsic  evidence 
of  authenticity. 

Every  bank  teller,  writing  master,  or  lithographer,  in  short,  any  ex- 
pert in  writing — and  to  such  men  we  appeal — knows  that  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  forge  a  single  signature,  which  of  course  is  copied,  so  per- 
fectly that  it  cannot  be  detected.  When  the  forgery  extends  even  to 
the  simple  copying  of  a  long  writing,  the  difficulty  of  fabrication  is 
vastly  increased.  Extend  the  forgery  to  a  dozen  copies  of  different 
writings,  and  we  believe  that  any  expert  will  say,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  make  a  fabrication  which  cannot  be  instantly  detected.  There  are 
seventeen  difTerent  writings,  containing  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy- 
three  words.  But  the  remarkable  fact  is,  those  documents  are  not 
copies.  They  are  originals,  written  in  various  places  in  France  and 
FiUgland.  If  this  is  a  forgery,  it  is  not  a  forgery  of  imitation,  which 
we  assert  would  be  impossible;  it  is  a  forger"  of  cren  on.  Now,  not  a 
fault  can  be  found  with  the  contents  or  arrangement  of  these  docu- 
ments. The  most  trifling  error  has  not  been  detected  in  a  long  series 
of  facts  in  a  multitude  of  dates,  in  the  names  of  persons  and  places  be- 
longing to  Prance,  Scotland,  Ireland,  and  North  America.  Such  a 
forgery  demanded  ;  an  possessed  of  an  imagination  capable  of  in- 
venting historical  Uu'  uuents,  writing  them  in  Latin,  English,  and 
French,  and  seizing  at  the  same  time  the  variations  of  three  languages 
during  the  lapse  of  a  century.  It  required  a  man  learned  in  archaeology, 
in  hf.aldry,  in  geography,  in  literary  history,  and  at  the  same  time 
possessing  a  caligraphic  skill  such  as  has  never  been  conceived  of. 
In  short,  the  forger  must  have  been  a  man  of  universal  knowledge. 
And  yet  if  we  are  to  believe  the  verdict  of  the  Edinburgh  jury,  it  is 


i^ 


ii' 


I  HI 


It] 


38 


IKTAL    OK    LOHl)    STIRLlNCi. 


easier  to  believe  'iuch  a  miracle,  than  to  suppose  there  has  been  a  mis- 
take as  to  the  date  of  placing  the  words,  ''first  geographer  of  the 
King,"  on  the  map. 

But  we  prefer  to  give  the  views  of  M.  V^illenave  upon  this  point. 
We  give  an  extract  from  a  letter  addressed  by  him  to  Lord  Stirling, 
to  whom  he  was  an  entire  stranger,  dated  from  Paris,  April  19,  1839. 

*'My  Lord:  If  the  letter  you  did  me  the  honor  of  writing  to  me  on 
the  27th  February,  has  hitherto  remained  unanswered,  it  is  because  I 
am  even  now  hardly  recovered  after  a  long  and  cruel  malady,  which 
placed  my  life  in  danger. 

<'It  was  not  without  the  deepest  astonishment  that  1  learned  the  sad 
catastrophe  by  which  it  was  desired  to  bring  your  law  suit  to  a  conclusion. 

"You  are  accused  of  having  fabricated,  or  caused  to  be  fabricated, 
all  the  writings  which  cover  the  back  of  a  map  of  Canada.  Permit 
me,  my  Lord,  to  say,  thai  if  they  thus  attack  your  honor,  they  ascflbe 
to  your  intelligence  an  immense  and  gigantic  extent;  for,  whoever  will 
attentively  examine  all  the  vast  composition  of  the  pretended  forgery, 
the  divers  contextures  of  the  characters,  the  perfect  conformity  of  the 
writing  of  Fenelon,  Flechier,  and  Louis  XV,  with  other  autograph 
documents  of  those  three  personages;  if  they  will  also  examine  ihe 
historical  part,  the  ensemble,  and  all  the  details,  they  must  be  con- 
vinced that  the  art  of  the  forger  cannot  extend  so  far.  All  the  science 
of  the  'AtUiquary^  of  Walter  Scott  would  not  have  sufficed  for  so  won- 
derful a  work;  and  I  doubt  whether  the  'Savans'  of  the  Edinburgh 
society,  so  justly  renowned  in  the  literary  world,  would,  if  they  were 
consulted,  affirm  that  they  would  be  capable  of  imagining  and  arrang- 
ing such  a  composition  j  for,  it  is  more  easy  to  scale  the  Heavens,  or 
to  penetrate  into  the  depths  of  the  philosophical  sciences,  than  to  give 
to  a  great  ensemble  of  falsehoods,  and  of  supposed  facts,  an  air  of  truth. 

"I  was  asked  to  certify  the  authenticity  of  the  writing  of  Flechier, 
and  of  the  three  or  four  lines  of  Louis  XV;  I  compared  them,  and 
could  not  hesitate  to  give  my  attestation.  The  illustrious  Monsieur 
Daunou,  member  of  the  institute,  keeper  of  the  archives  of  the  king- 
dom, has  likewise  certified  the  authenticity  of  the  writing  of  Fenelon. 
Now,  it  would  result  from  the  verification  of  the  artists  of  Scotland, 
that  the  keeper  of  the  archives  and  I  must  have  been  deceived,  and 
that  the  writings,  certified  by  us  as  authentic,  must  have  been  forged  by 
you,  my  Lord,  assisted  by  a  lady,  and  by  an  illiterate  young  man, 
whom  you  must  have  set  to  the  work. 


TRIAL    OF    LORD    STIRUNO. 


m 


las  been  a  iiiis- 
Q[raplier  of  the 

pon  this  point. 

Lord  Stirling, 

Vpril  19,  1839. 

riling  to  me  on 
,  it  is  because  I 
malady,  whicli 

learned  the  sad 
to  a  conclusion, 
be  fabricated, 
nada.     Permit 
sr,  they  ascflbe 
r,  whoever  will 
tended  forgery, 
iforniity  of  the 
ither  autograph 
}   examine  ihe 
must  be  con- 
All  the  science 
3ed  for  60  won- 
he  Edinburgh 
,  if  they  were 
(ig  and  arrang- 
Heavens,  or 
s,  than  to  give 
in  air  of  truth, 
g  of  Flechier, 
red  them,  and 
ious  Monsieur 
es  of  the  king- 
ig  of  Fenelon. 
of  Scotland, 
deceived,  and 
jeen  forged  by 
young  man, 


"It  may  be  said  that  this  decision  is  audacious,  and  even  bur- 
lesque." 

W  W  ^F  ^^  "  ^P  ^F  ^P 

''Well,  now,  what  can  be  "proved  by  the  depositions  of  a  servant 
girl  and  a  porter,  to  make  out  that  it  was  you,  my  Lord,  who  fabri- 
cated, with  your  fellow-laborers,  a  woman  and  an  unlettered  yoimg 
man,  a  work,  the  very  conception  and  execution  of  which  would  have 
embarrassed  a  whole  academy? 

•'And  of  what  use  can  be  other  subaltern  witnesses,  without  value 
and  without  authority,  on  the  foundation  even  of  the  question?  For 
example,  what  imports  it  whence  came  the  map  thus  covered  with 
documents?  Since  what  period  has  it  been  held  necessary,  under  a 
penalty  of  being  a  forger,  to  prove  the  origin  of  a  writing  or  document 
that  is  produced,  the  forgery  of  which  cannot  be  proved?" 

"It  is  contended  that  the  pretended  forgers  of  the  map  have  betrayed 
themselves  by  too  much  precaution.  I  cannot  see  that;  I  should,  in- 
deed, seethe  contrary  if  1  admitted  .tne  falsification;  for  would  it  not 
have  been  great  unskilfulness  to  make  Mr.  Alexander  write  to  the 
Marchioness  de  Lambert,  'I  have  so  little  idea  at  present  that  the  titles 
and  estates  of  the  Stirling  family  can  devolve  upon  my  children,  that  I 
have  encouraged  the  taste  of  my  son  for  the  ministry  of  our  church  of 
Scotland,  and  he  is  preparing  himself  in  Holland,  at  the  University  of 
Ley  den.'  Assuredly  this  passage  alone  would  suffice  to  confound  the 
accusation. 

"Your  lawsuit,  my  Lord,  will  have  its  place,  and  be  re-echoed  in 
the  pages  of  history. 

"Fiven  if  I  did  not  believe  in  your  loyalty  and  honor,  it  would  be 
impossible  for  me  to  believe  in  the  vast  genius  which  would  attribute 
to  you,  if  it  were  well  founded,  the  fabrication  of  the  map  of  Canada. 

"The  accusation  must  necessarily  fall,  if  it  be  examined  from  the 
origin  and  as  a  whole.  All  the  minor  details  ought'to  be  overlooked 
in  the  grandeur  of  this  cause. 

"Be  pleased  to  accept,  my  Lord,  with  the  expression  of  my  wishes, 
that  of  my  moat  distinguished  consideration. 

(Signed)  "VILLENAVE, 

"Ex- Professor  of  the  Literary  History  of  France  at  the 
.        Royal  AthencBum,  one  of  the  Presidents  of  the  Histori- 
cal Institute,  (^c,  4*c. 

"Paris,  April  \9,  1839." 


II 


•  i 


40 


TRIAL    OF    LORD    STIRLING. 


The  reader  will  judge  of  the  weight  to  be  given  (o  Mr,  Villenave's 
letter  by  the  following  letter  from  Professor  C.  (J.  Jewett,  the  accom- 
plished Librarian  of  the  Smithsonian  institution,  addressed  to  Lord  Stir' 
ling's  counsel: 

"Smithsonian  Institution,  August  29,  1853. 
''John  L.  Hayes,  Esq., 

"Dear  Sir:  I  have  this  morning  received  your  letter,  making  in- 
quiry respecting  the  literary  standing  of  Mr.  Villenave,  late  President 
of  the  'Institut  Historique,'  and  the  value  of  his  opinion  relative  to 
the  genuineness  of  ancient  French  autographs: 

"I  cannot  perhaps  do  better  than  refer  you,  in  reply,  to  the  follow- 
ing works  of  standard  bibliographical  authority,  namely,  'La  Prance 
Litteraire,  par  M.  J.  M.  Querard,'  art.,  Villenave,  (Mathieu  Guillauine 
Therese,)  tome  10,  pp.  183 — 188;  and  the  'Manuel  de  TAmateur 
d'Autographes,  par  P.  Jul.  Fontaine,"  pp.  343 — 350. 

"M.  Querard  gives  a  biographical  notice  of  M.  Villenave,  assign- 
ing him  a  high  rank  as  a  literary  man.  He  was  the  founder  and  editor 
of  several  influential  journals,  in  the  charge  of  one  of  which  (Le 
Courrier)  he  was  associated  with  M.  Guizot.  He  was  one  of  the  edi- 
tors of  the  'Biographic  Universelle,'  to  which  he  contributed  not  less 
than  three  hundred  articles.  In  connexion  with  M.  Depping  he  edited 
the  'Collection  des  Prosateurs  Franfais.'  He  furnished  most  of  the 
biographical  articles  in  the  'Encyclopedic  des  Gens  du  Monde.'  He 
wrote  a  translation  of  Ovid's  Metamorphosis,'  which  was  published, 
with  the  original  text,  in  an  elegant  edition,  in  4  volumes,  4to,  by 
Didot,  1807-1822.  He  also  wrote  a  translation  in  prose  of  the  first 
eight  books  of  the  iEneid  of  Virgil,  which  was  published,  (with  a 
translation  of  the  last  four  books  by  M.  Aman,  and  the  Latin  text)  in 
1832,  in  3  vols.,  8vo. 

<'The  list  of  the  publications  of  M.  Villenave  occupies  eight  columns 
of  the  work  of  Querard.  They  consist  of  poems,  academical  dis- 
courses, politicarpamphlets,  and  works  mostly  in  the  departments  of 
literary  history,  bibliography,  and  biography.  M.  Villenave  was 
General  Secretary  of  the  Celtic  Society,  and  of  the  Royal  Society  of 
Antiquaries,  President  of  the  Philotechnic  Society,  Vice  President  of 
the  Society  of  Christian  Morals,  and  President  of  the  Second  Class  of 
the  Historical  Institute.  His  reputation  is  that  of  a  learned,  labo- 
rious, and  conscientious  scholar,  and  of  an  amiable  and  modest  man. 
He  possessed  a  valuable  library,  rich  in  literary  history,  and  in  works 


Ir.  Villenave's 
Ji,  the  accom- 
d  lo  Lord  Stir" 

i. 

ft  29,  1853. 

r,  making  in- 
late  President 
ion  relative  to 

to  the  follow- 
,  'La  France 
eu  Guillaume 
Je  TAmateiir 

enave,  assign- 
der  and  editor 
)f  which  (Le 
ne  of  the  edi- 
)uted  not  less 
•ing  he  edited 
1  most  of  the 
Monde.'  He 
i3  published, 
imes,  4to,  by 
le  of  the  first 
led,  (with  a 
atin  text)  in 

ight  columns 
idemical  dis- 
partments  of 
llenave  was 
al  Society  of 
President  of 
;ond  Class  of 
;arned,  labo- 
modest  man . 
ind  in  works 


TRIAL    OF    LOPD    STIRLING. 


41 


relating  to  the  first  French  revolution.  He  was  a  most  indefatigable, 
intelligent,  and  successful  collector  of  autographs.  M.  Fontaine 
makes  frequent  mention  of  him  in  the  work  above  named,  and  devotes 
a  greater  space  to  his  collection  than  to  that  of  any  other  individual. 
He  calls  it  a  'veritable  musec  aulographique,'  a'vaste'  collection.  He 
seems  to  regard  it  as  the  most  important  private  collection  in  France. 

''I  suppose  that  there  is  no  man  in  France  whose  judgment  on  mat- 
ters relating  to  the  genuineness  of  autographic  writings,  particularly 
those  of  French  sovereigns  and  'savans,^  is  entitled  to  be  received  with 
greater  confidence  than  that  of  M.  Villenave, 

"Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  '  ''C.  C.  JEWRTT." 

1 1 .  The  incriminated  map  was  known  and  described  long  before 
the  period  when  Lord  Stirling's  accusers  pretend  it  first  received  the 
writings  which  cover  its  back. 

One  of  the  arguments  addliced  against  the  authenticity  of  the  docu- 
ments was  that  the  counsel  for  the  defence  could  not  show  who  had 
been  the  last  possessor  of  the  map  so  richly  clothed  with  autographs, 
nor  determine  precisely  its  origin,  or  how  it  came  into  the  hands  of  the 
person  who  enabled  the  Earl  of  Stirling  to  produce  it  in  the  Civil 
court.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  if  the  Earl  could  there  have  shown 
that  it  had  been  for  a  long  time  in  the  possession  of  some  respectable 
person,  from  whose  deed-chest  it  had  been  drawn  and  transmitted  to 
him,  no  suspicion  could  have  rested  upon  the  document.  But  is  it 
reasonable  to  declare  a  document,  bearing  upon  its  face  all  the  charac- 
ters of  authenticity,  a  fabrication  or  forgery,  because  all  the  proof  of 
former  custody  is  wanting?  Such  a  doctrine  would  compel  us  to  reject 
the  greater  number  of  historical  facts,  which  are  received  without 
doubt  as  to  their  truth.  Such  a  doctrine  would  compel  us  to  reject 
even  the  gospel  itself;  for  who  can  point  out  its  material  origin  in  the 
Christian  world;  how,  where,  and  at  what  precise  time  it  was  written? 
The  material  proof  is  certainly  wanting  of  the  origin  of  the  books  of 
the  Bible.  But  no  man  could  have  fabricated  the  divine  volume.  We 
make  the  comparison  reverently.  No  forger  could  have  fabricated  the; 
documents  on  the  map  of  De  L^Isle.  But,  although  the  veil  which 
covers  the  details  of  a  historical  ftict  be  not  fully  raised,  the  ^act  does 
not  the  less  remain  established. 

Lord  Stirling  being  compelled  by  the  passionate  resistance  of  his 
6 


42 


TRIAL    OF    LORD    STIRLTXCl, 


enemies  to  add  new  liglit  to  the  light  of  evidence,  discovered  that  an 
English  gentleman  of  the  name  of  Rowland  Otto  Bayer,  prisoner  of 
war  in  France  during  the  Empire,  had  died  at  Verdun  in  1S05;  and 
that  in  a  bordereau  or  list  of  papers  found  at  his  lodgings,  and  deliv- 
ered to  M.  Gornepu,  bearer  of  a  power  of  attorney  from  Mr.  Christie, 
of  English  descent,  and  the  fiiend  of  the  deceased,  was  written  what 
follows.     We  translate  from  the  French: 

No.  1.  Letter  of  JNl.  Orsel,  de  Paris,  dated  2d  January,  1803.     ^  -, 

No.  2.  Copy  of  a  letter  lo  M.  Billard,  of  2Slh  June,  1804. 

No.  3.  Map  of  Canada,  or  New  France,  by  Guillaume  De  Ulsle. 

On  the  back  of  thia  map  are  several  documents,  viz:  an  epitaph  in 
English,  an  original  letter  of  J.  Alexander,  with  a  marginal  note  by 
Fenelon;  a  note  by  the  traveller  Mallet;  some  attestations,  «fcc. 

No.  4.  A  map  of  the  world,  colored.     And  below  this  list  we  read: 

*'For  us  as  a  legal  act,  certified  literal,  and  conformable  lo  the  ori- 
ginal.    The  officer,  Secretary  of  the  Fortress  of  Verdun. 

(Signed)  "PARMEJNTIER." 

"Verdun,  6th  May,  1807. 

''No.  420.     Seen  by  me,  artist  verifier  of  writings. 

(Signed)  ''H.  MARTIN. 

"Seal  of  the  Minister  of  War.  " 

**Seen  by  the  chief  of  the  recruiting  office  and  military  justice. 
(Signed)  PETITKT." 

*'By  order  of  the  Minister  Secretary  of  State  for  War,  the  Counsellor 
of  Stale,  director-general  of  the  control  of  centralization  and  audit 
certified  by  me,  the  signature  of  M.  Parmentier  attached  on  the  other 
side  in  the  quality  of  secretary  of  the  fortress  of  Verdun. 

(Signed)  '^MARTINEAU. 

"Paris,  22d  December,  1838." 

This  document,  supported  as  it  is  by  other  circumstances  which  we 
shall  detail,  proves  beyond  question  that  the  map  with  its  documents 
described  in  the  "bordereau^^  of  the  Englishman,  Rowland  Otto  Bayer, 
who  died  a  prisoner  of  war  at  Verdun,  1805,  is  absolutely  the  same 
which  figured  at  the  criminal  trial  in  Edinburgh.  This  being  proved, 
the  map  could  not,  in  spite  of  the'  testimony  of  the  cobbler,  hawker, 
&c.,  have  been  fabricated  at  Paris  in  1836  and  1837,  to  meet  the  exi- 
gencies of  Lord  Stirling's  case.     We  have  the  copy  of  the  inventory 


> 


overed  that  an 
ir,  prisoner  of 

in  1805;  and 
igs,  and  deliv- 

Mr.  Christie, 
3  written  what 

Y,  1803.    '  , 

1804. 

ne  De  Ulsle. 

an  epitaph  in 

•ginai  note  by 

[IS,  &c. 

3  list  we  read: 

ible  to  the  ori- 

I. 

^.NTIER." 


MARTIN. 


V  justice. 
TITET." 

le  Counsellor 
on  and  audit 
1  on  the  other 

TINEAU. 

ces  which  we 
its  documents 
d  Otto  Bayer, 
tely  the  same 
being  proved, 
bier,  hawker, 
meet  the  exi- 
the  inventory 


TRIAL   OP  LORD    STIRLING. 


43 


describing  this  map,  certified  on  May  6,  1807,  by  Parmentier,  the  sec- 
retary of  the  fortress  of  Verdun.  We  have  the  attestation  of  the  Coun- 
sellor of  State  and  Minister  of  War,  M.  Martineau,  that  the  signature 
of  Parmentier  is  genuine;  and  that  he  made  this  signature  on  the  6tli 
of  May,  1807,  in  the  quality  of  secretary  of  the  fortress  of  Verdun. 

With  this  proof,  of  what  account  are  the  testimony  of  the  Scotch  and 
French  witnesses,  or  the  judgment  of  the  Edinburgh  jury  ? 

This  important  document  was  authenticated  at  Paris  by  the  Minister 
of  War  on  the  22d  December,  1838,  a  little  over  four  months  before 
the  close  of  the  trial  at  Edinburgh.  The  counsel  for  the  defence 
advised  Lord  Stirling  that  before  producing  this  document,  if  not  neces^ 
sary,  it  would  at  least  be  desirable  to  add  other  proofs  to  the  attestatioa 
of  the  Minister  of  War.  Lord  Stirling,  knowing  well  all  the  difficulties 
which  would  be  raised  in  his  ca^,  allowed  himeelf  to  be  persuaded 
that  if  he  could  supply  the  proof  which  was  wanting  of  the  presence 
of  the  nami  >  of  Rowland  Otto  Bayer  upon  the  lists  of  the  prisoners  of 
war,  the  document  signed  Parmentier,  and  recognised  by  the  Minister 
of  War  as  authsntic,  would  have  authority  so  great  as  to  resist  every 
objection.  He  knew  that  the  prosecution  did  not  scruple  to  call  evciy 
writing  produced  by  him  a  forgery.  He  feared  that  they  even  might 
dare  to  attack  a  document  certified  by  a  French  Counsellor  of  State, 
as  they  had  suspected  one  attested  by  the  Keeper  General  of  the  Ar- 
chives of  the  Kingdom. 

Most  unfortunately  the  Verdun  document,  authenticated  in  Pariff^ 
was  sent  back  to  France  some  time  before  the  commencement  of  the 
trial,  and  when  it  was  returned  to  Edinburgh,  the  judgment  in  the 
forgery  trial  had  been  pronounced.  When  Lord  Stirling  was  restored 
to  freedom,  he  ordered  new  searches  to  be  made  in  Verdun  and  Paris, 
which  were  prolonged  until  the  month  of  June,  1841. 

On  the  4th  of  February  of  that  year,  an  acquaintance  of  the  Earl 
of  Stirling,  Mr.  William  Benner,  wrote  to  the  Minister  of  War  ta 
inquire  whether,  in  the  archives  of  his  administration,  a  detailed  in- 
ventory of  the  effects  which  had  belonged  to  Rowland  Otto  Bayer 
could  be  found,  and  applied  for  a  copy  of  it.  The  following  was  the 
answer: 

"  The  Minister  Secretary  of  War  informs  Mr.  William  Benner,  in 
reply  to  his  inquiries,  having  for  object  to  obtain  a  copy  of  the  inven- 
tory believed  to  have  been  drawn  up  at  Verdun  of  the  efTects  belonging^ 
to  Mr.  Rowland  Otto  Baijer,  who  died  in  1805,  in  that  town,  beingf 


ih 


44 


TRIAL   OF   LORD   STIRLING. 


•     > 


^■\i:'':. 


then  a  prisoner  of  war,  that  there  has  not  been  found  in  the  archives 
of  the  Ministry,  either  any  inventory  (besides  the  bordereau)  or  extract 
from  the  register  of  deaths  applicable  to  Mr.  Rowland  Otto  Bayer, 
and  that  the  name  is  not  inscribed  on  the  list  of  prisoners  in  said 
town." 

This  indeed  seems  a  fatal  answer.  But  let  us  not  prejudge  too 
hastily,  for  the  Minister  of  War  immediately  adds: 

"  But  it  results  from  a  letter  dated  from  Verdun,  on  the  30th  Messi- 
dor,  without  indication  of  the  year,  by  a  Mr.  Rowland  Otto  Bayer, 
written  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  permission  to  see  his  daughter, 
then  eighteen  years  old,  and  a  boarder  in  the  house  of  the  Ladies 
Green,  living  on  the  rampart  Cauchoise,  at  Rouen,  that  when  he  was 
residing  at  Paris,  in  the  house  of  Madame  Pieraent,  rue  de  la  Loi,  ho- 
tel du  Cercle,  he  had  been  in  consequence  of  a  decree  of  the  govern- 
ment made  a  prisoner  of  war,  and  obliged  first  to  proceeil  to  Fontain- 
bleau,  and  afterwards  to  Verdun. 

"For  the  minister,  and  by  his  order,  the  Councillor  of  State,  general 
secretary. 

(Signed)  '  "MARTINEAU." 

The  fact  that  Bayer's  name  is  not  inscribed  upon  the  lists  of  prison- 
ers of  war  was  known  to  Lord  Stirling  before  the  trial.  For  this  rea- 
son he  was  induced  to  defer  the  production  of  the  bordereau,  as  be 
knew  that  the  absence  of  Bayer's  namo  from  the  lists  of  prisoners 
would  be  objected  against  the  document.  It  was  only  on  the  4th  of 
February,  1841,  nearly  two  years  after  the  trial,  that  this  matter  was 
cleared  up,  and  proof  obtained  that  Bayer  was  in  facta  prisoner  of  war 
at  Verdun,  although  his  name  was  not  on  the  lists. 

It  was  only  on  the  22d  of  May,  1841,  that  the  mayor  of  Verdun, 
M.  Tapinier,  wrote  to  another  acquaintance  of  Lord  Stirling,  that  the 
seals  had  been  put  on  the  effects  of  Mr.  Rowland  Otto  Baijer  after  his 
death,  the  30th  Floreal,  year  XIII,  (20th  of  May,  1805,)  and  that  a 
proces  verbal  of  the  removal  of  the  seal  followed  on  the  7th  Praireal, 
(27th  May.) 

Lord  Stirling  was  advised  to  make  inquiries  respecting  any  English 
detenus  who  might  be  still  living  in  France,  and  who  might  furnish 
further  information  relative  to  Mr.  Btiyer.  His  London  solicitor, 
while  making  inquiries  at  Brighton,  ascertained  that  the  hotel  d'Angle- 
terre,  at  Dieppe,  was  kept  by  an  old  man  named  Willoughby  Taylor, 


the  archives 
u)  or  extrftct 
Otto  Bayer, 
iners  in  said 

jrejudge  too 

1  30th  Messi- 
Otto  Bayer, 
lis  daughter, 
:  the  Ladies 
vhen  he  was 
e  la  Loi,  ho- 
the  govera- 
l  to  Fontain- 

tate,  general 

[NEAU." 

sts  of  prison- 
For  this  rea- 
lereaUf  as  he 
of  prisoners 
m  the  4th  of 
matter  was 
soner  of  war 

of  Verdun, 
ing,  that  the 
lijer  after  his 
,)  and  that  a 

th  Praireal, 

any  English 
light  furnish 
on  solicitor, 
tel  d'Angle- 
hby  Taylor, 


TRIAL   OP    LORD    STrRLING. 


4» 


who  had  been  a  prisoner  at  Verdun.  A  letter  of  inquiry  was  addressed 
to  Mr.  Taylor,  and  the  following  reply  received.  We  have  now  the 
original  before  us,  with  the  post-marks  and  stamps,  which  attest  its 
authenticity,  as  also  those  of  Lord  Stirling's  solicitors. 

Hotel  d'Angleterre,  Dieppe,  March  28,  1842. 
"Sir:  I  beg  to  acknowledge  »he  receipt  of  your  letter,  and  in  reply 
to  inform  you  thai  1  knew  Mr.  Rowland  Otto  Bayer  very  well.    I 
kept  an  hotel  at  Verdun,  and  Mr.  R.  O.  B.  frequented  my  house.     I 
was  hkewise  in  the  habit  of  supplying  him  with  different  articles  at  his 
house;  he  generally  settled  his  account  every  week.     On  one  occasion 
that  I  called  upon  him  for  that  purpose,  I  perfectly  recollect  seeing  a 
very  old  map,  with  some  writings  on  the  back  of  it.     It  was  partly 
folded  up.    1  am  not  aware  of  what  country  it  was,  not  having  taken 
particular  notice  of  it.     This  is  all  the  information  I  can  give  you;  I 
think  I  should  recollect  the  map  again  if  I  were  to  see  it. 
"I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  "WILLOUGHBY  TAYLOR." 

Unfortunately  there  was  no  means  of  taking  Mr.  Taylor's  testimony 
to  be  available  in  British  courts  without  commencing  certain  proceed- 
ings in  chancery,  the  expenses  of  which,  as  the  London  solicitors  say 
in  their  letters,  would  amount  to  some  hundied  pounds.  While  the 
expediency  of  taking  this  course  w^as  under  deliberation,  Mr.  Taylor 
died. 

Mr.  Eugene  Alexander,  a  son  of  Lord  Stirling,  in  the  mean  time, 
had  visited  Mr.  Taylor,  and  exhibited  to  him  a  fac  simile  of  the  map, 
which  he  immediately  recognised,  particularly  from  the  copy  of  the 
inscription  of  John  Alexander,  as  being  one  he  had  seen  in  possession 
of  Mr.  Bayer.  The  statement  of  Mr.  Alexander,  written  down  at  the 
time,  we  refrain  for  obvious  reasons  from  giving;  and  add  a  copy  of  a 
letter,  authenticated  by  post-marks,  stamps,  «fcc.,  received  by  Mr.  E. 
Alexander  while  residing  in  London,  from  Mrs.  Taylor,  after  the  death 
of  her  husband. 

"  Hotel  d'Angleterre,  Dieppe,  July  7,  1847. 
"  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  inquiries  1  beg  to  say,  that  my  late  husband, 
Mr.  Willoughby  Taylor,  used  frequently  to  talk  about  the  ancient  map 
covered  with  writings  on  the  back,  which  he  had  seen  during  his  de- 
tention at  Verdun,  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Otto  Bayer,  who  died  there 


46 


TRIAL   OF   LORD    STIRLING. 


in  1805;  and  when  you  passed  through  our  town  in  May,  1842,  on 
your  way  to  Paris,  and  showed  liim  the/ac  simile  copy  of  the  writings, 
he  at  once  recognised  it  as  the  exact  copy  of  those  on  the  map  he  had 
remarked  in  Mr.  Otto  Bayer's  lodgings.  I  hope  this  information  may 
prove  of  use  to  you;  it  is  all  I  can  state  on  the  subject.  / 

"I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  "ANN  TAYLOR." 

The  results  of  these  searches  and  correspondence  may  be  summed 
up  as  follows: 

1.  The  Englishman,  Rowland  Otto  Bayer,  was  a  prisoner  of  war  at 
Verdun  in  the  year  1805. 

2.  He  died  there  at  that  period.  S 

3.  The  bordereau  drawn  up  by  the  secretary  of  the  fortress  of  Ver- 
dun the  6th  May,  1807,  proves  that  the  copy  of  the  map  of  Canada, 
which  Lord  Stirling  was  accused  of  forging  at  Paris  in  1836-'7,  was  in 
1805,  thirty  years  before,  in  possession  of  Rowland  Otto  Bayer. 

5.  These  facts,  established  by  complete  documentary  proof,  are  con- 
firmed by  the  statements  of  Mr.  Willoughby  Taylor. 

With  this  convincing  proof  of  former  custody  of  the  map  and  docu- 
ments, the  last  pretence  of  forgery  vanishes,  and  with  it  the  whole 
fabric  of  surmisings  and  inventions  with  which  it  was  so  flimsily 
interlaced. 

The  question  will  be  asked:  How  came  the  map  into  the  possession 
of  M'elle  Lenormand? 

The  mystery  which  rests  upon  the  former  custody  of  this  map  can- 
not be  fully  explained,  nor  is  it  necessary  that  it  should  be  explained 
to  establish  the  genuineness  of  the  map  and  documents,  the  only  point 
in  question. 

M'elle  Lenormand,  who  was  by  no  means  a  mere  fortune-teller 
as  represented  at  the  trial,  but  a  woman  of  distinguished  literary  at- 
tainments, and  of  unsullied  private  character,  who  had  been  consulted 
by  Napoleon,  the  Emperor  Alexander,  and  most  of  the  great  person- 
ages in  Europe,  (see  her  life  and  memoirs  published  since  her  death 
by  M.  Cellier  du  Fayel,  professor  of  law  and  moral  philosophy,)  had 
undertaken  to  aid  Lord  Stirling  in  researches  for  documents  in  France. 
There  was  every  reason  for  believing  that  some  of  the  more  ancient 
documents  or  records  referring  to  the  Stirling  family  might  be  discov- 
ered in  France;  as  the  French  had  taken  possession  of  the  old  fort  at 


TRIAL    OP    LORD    STIRLING. 


47 


lay,  1842,  on 
r  ihe  writings, 
e  map  he  had 
armation  may 


AYLOR." 

y  be  summed 

oner  of  war  at 


)rlress  of  Ver- 
Eip  of  Canada, 
336-'7,  was  in 
I  Bayer, 
proof,  are  con- 
nap  and  docu- 
it  the  whole 
as  so  fiimsily 

the  possession 

this  map  can- 
1  be  explained 
the  only  point 

fortuneteller 
d  literary  at- 
teen  consulted 
great  person- 
nce  her  death 
osophy,)  had 
nts  in  France, 
more  ancient 
ght  be  discov- 
the  old  fort  at 


Port  Royal,  built  by  Sir  Wm.  Alexander,  and  occupied  by  his  son, 
and  after  the  surrender  of  Nova  Scotia  to  England  by  the  French,  all 
the  Acadian  documents  had  been  carried  to  France.  The  extraor- 
dinary facilities  possessed  by  the  remarkable  woman  who  figures  in 
this  transaction,  for  communicating  with  people  of  ail  classes  in  Paris, 
naturally  suggested  her  as  one,  among  many  employed  on  the  same 
work,  who  might  aid  Lord  Stirling  in  his  researches. 

M'elle  Lenormand  had  been  warmly  attached  to  the  Bourbons.  She 
was  among  the  few  Royalists  who  had  escaped  the  massacres  of  the 
reign  of  terror.  It  is  well  known  that  among  those  who  also  escaped 
was  Josephine,  wife  of  the  Marquis  de  Hoauharnois,  afterwards  Em- 
press of  France,  who,  from  sympathy  in  their  early  misfortunes,  always 
preserved  a  warm  friendship  for  M'elle  Lenormand.  This  remarkable 
woman  afterwards  repaid  the  favor  received  from  Josephine,  by 
writing  the  best  memoir  extant  of  the  unfortunate  Empress.  Among 
others  of  the  Royalists  who  escaped — and  in  this  circle  of  the  old  aris- 
tocracy M'elle  Lenormand  was  admitted  on  the  most  familiar  terms — 
was  the  Princess  de  B****,  one  of  the  old  noblesse,  who  had  been 
much  indebted  to  M'elle  Lenormand  for  kindness  during  the  terrible 
trials  of  the  revolution.  At  her  house  one  evening,  previous  to  1837, 
M'elle  met  Prince  Talleyrand.  At  this  interview,  the  subject  of  Lord 
Stirling's  claims,  which  had  already  attracted  great  interest  in  French 
society,  was  the  subject  of  conversation.  Shortly  after  this  interview, 
the  map  came  into  M'elle  Lenormand 's  possession.  Of  all  these  cir- 
cumstances there  are  no  other  proofs,  than  that  lady's  repeated  declara- 
tion, and  we  desire  our  readers  to  make  the  just  distinction  between  this 
part  of  our  narrative,  in  which  we  undertake  to  give  only  the  rumors 
in  French  society,  and  the  views  and  declarations  of  Lord  Stirling  and 
his  friends,  and  the  statements  supported  by  authentic  proofs  which  we 
have  before  made. 

When  the  map  was  shown  to  Lord  Stirling  by  M'elle  Lenormand, 
he  told  her  that  he  could  accept  of  no  such  document  from  her  hands, 
unless  he  had  distinct  proofs  of  its  former  custody.  She  then  admitted, 
and  afterwards  made  a  deposition  under  oath  to  that  effect,  that  the 
document  was  sent  to  her  through  the  agency  of  Prince  Talleyrand. 
M'elle  Lenormand  always  manifested  a  great  eagerness  to  have  a  com- 
mission in  France  to  verify  the  document,  or  to  have  its  authenticity 
established  before  a  tribunal  in  France,  according  to  the  advice  of  the 
Dean  of  the  French  advocates.    The  illegal  course  of  the  Scotch 


":■« 


48 


TRIAL    OK    LORD    STIRLINU. 


t  ■••,.. 


■0' 


.    S 


courts,  ill  refusing  a  commission  to  France,  prevented  Lord  Siirling 
from  oblaming  the  proofsof  former  ownership,  and  M'elle  Lenormand; 
being  seventy-six  years  old,  could  not  undertake  a  journey  to  Edin- 
burgh to  testify  at  the  trial. 

Some  facts  must  be  borne  in  mind  which  will  throw  light  on  the  liis- 
tory  of  this  document  previous  to  1839.  This  map  of  Canada  was 
beautifully  painted  around  the  title,  as  maps  are  which  are  in  royal 
keeping.  Again,  it  contains  among  other  writings  a  note  of  Louis 
XV.  It  is  therefore  probable,  that  this  map  was  preserved  at  the  royal 
residence  of  Versailles.  At  the  sacking  of  the  Palace,  it  without  doubt 
came  into  other  hands,  witli  a  multitude  of  other  relics  and  documents, 
which  were  afterwards  sold  as  curiosities.  Thus  it  came  into  the 
hands  of  Mr.  R.  O.  Bayer,  and  at  his  death  was  probably  bought  for 
the  Government,  and  deposited  in  the   American  archives  in  Paris. 

Now,  it  is  a  remarkable  circumstance,  that  about  the  very  lime  of 
the  discovery  of  this  map  in  Lenormand's  hands  in  1837,  a  document 
was  stolen  or  removed  from  these  very  archives.  This  fact  was  after- 
wards communicated  to  Lord  Stirling  by  Baron  de  Pages,  and  other 
gentlemen,  with  a  recommendation  to  use  every  means  to  verify  the 
identity.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  no  means  were  left  untried.  The 
best  influence — both  English  and  French — was  brought  to  bear,  not 
only  upon  the  officers  attached  to  the  archives,  but  also  upon  the  Min- 
isters and  the  late  King.  But  the  office  had  been  closed  to  all  re- 
search, and  the  most  absolute  refusals  were  given  in  every  instance, 
even  though  a  demand  was  made  to  verify  that  the  map  of  Canada  was 
not  the  document  so  lost.  The  only  reason  assigned  by  several  dis- 
tinguished  persons  in  France  for  the  refusal  to  interfere  in  the  matter 
was,  that  the  King's  Government  had  been  extremely  annoyed  by  re- 
monstrances made  to  it  by  the  British  Government,  which  had  accused 
it  of  extending  aid  and  giving  up  documents  to  Lord  Stirling,  with  a 
view  to  disturb  the  peaceful  relations  existing  between  Great  Britain 
and  her  Canadian  colonies.  And  it  has  been  believed  by  many  that 
the  charge  of  forgery  was  got  up  merely  to  afford  a  pretext  for  searching 
in  Lord  Stirling's  house  for  some  proof  of  a  treasonable  character, 
showing  an  understanding  between  him  and  French  authorities. 
Much  sympathy  was  expressed  for  Lord  Stirling  and  his  family,  ac- 
companied by  polite,  but  firm,  refusals  to  take  any  part  in  the  object 
desired,  for  the  reasons  above  given. 

These  demands  for  verification  were  renewed  at  every  change  of 


ness. 


TRIAL    OP   LORD    STIRLING. 


49 


Lord  Siirling^ 
a  Lenormnnd> 
rney  to  Edin- 

jht  on  the  his- 
Cannda  was 
;h  are  in  royal 
note  of  Louis 
;d  at  the  royal 
vvilhoul  doubt 
nd  documents, 
;ame  into  the 
bly  bouglit  for 
,03  in  Paris. 
le  very  time  of 
7,  a  document 
fact  was  after- 
iges,  and  other 
IS  to  verify  the 
untried.     The 
,  to  bear,  not 
upon  the  Min- 
osed   to  all  re- 
very  instance, 
3f  Canada  was 
jy  several  dis. 
in  the  matter 
nnoyed  by  re- 
\  had  accused 
tirling,  with  a 
Great  Britain 
by  many  that 
t  for  searching 
ible  character, 
h  authorities, 
lis  family,  ac- 
t  in  the  object 

ery  change  of 


men  and  Government  ineffectually.  Our  talented  fellow-countryman. 
Major  Poore,  who  was  employed  by  the  ^.lassachusetts  Historical  So- 
ciety to  make  searches  in  Paris,  was  equally  unsuccessful  in  his  eflforta 
to  obtain  access  to  these  archives.  He  is  wdl  acquainted  with  the 
fact  of  Lord  Stirling's  failure,  and  can  attest  to  the  truth  of  the  state- 
ments relative  to  his  own  efforts. 

Whatever  may  be  the  deficiencies  of  proof  as  to  the  former  custody 
of  this  document,  they  are  wholly  immaterial  as  proofs  of  its  genuine- 
ness. This  document,  clothed  with  autographs  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished men  of  France,  is  not  like  an  ordinary  deed.  It  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  work  of  art,  completely  covered  with  indications  of  its 
authenticity,  or  proofs  of  its  falsity.  It  is  like  hundreds  of  old  pictures 
by  the  great  masters,  which  have  passed  through  suspicious  hands, 
which  are  authenticated  by  no  proofs  of  former  custody,  but  are  re- 
garded as  of  priceless  value  solely  on  account  of  the  inherent  evidences 
which  they  present  of  their  genuineness. 

Lord  Stirling  was  accused  of  forging  an  excerpt  or  abridged  copy  o 
the  charter  of  Novo  damns  of  1639.  Two  days  of  the  trial  were  oc- 
cupied in  discussions  and  presenting  evidence  in  relation  to  the  excerpt. 
The  object  of  the  Crown  counsel  in  incriminating  the  excerpt  was  to 
convey  the  impression  to  the  jury  that  Lord  Stirling  had  founded  all 
his  claims  upon  the  charter  of  1639,  and  that  the  excerpt  accused  was 
the  only  evidence  presented  of  the  evidence  of  that  charter.  The 
Crown  counsel  undertook  to  show,  as  Blackwood  has  since  done,  that 
if  this  excerpt  is  proved  to  be  insufficient  evidence  of  the  existence  of 
the  charter  of  1639  that  all  Lord  Stirling's  claims  fell  to  the  ground. 
It  was  even  asserted  that  the  services  of  the  juries,  who  had  given 
their  verdicts  as  to  the  heirship,  were  founded  on  this  excerpt. 

Now,  what  are  the  facts?  This  excerpt  was  never  presented  to  the 
jury  at  any  one  of  the  services.  It  was  not  used  or  presented  by  Lord 
Stirling  as  proof  in  the  civil  suit  brought  by  the  Crown  to  reduce  the 
services.  It  is  not  placed  on  the  list  of  proofs,  although  Lord  Stir- 
ling's counsel  always  considered  it  a  genuine  and  authentic  document. 
He  had  himself  withdrawn  it.  He  was  himself  perfectly  aware  of  all 
the  apparent  defects  in  the  documents  which  the  Crown  counsel  pre- 
tend to  have  discovered  by  a  rare  sagacity;  and  for  these  reasons  he  had 
instructed  his  counsel  not  to  rely  upon  a  document  which  was  sub- 
jected to  a  breath  of  suspicion.  It  is  true  he  had  every  reason  for  be- 
lieving the  document  genuine,  and  proof  since  obtained  has  fully 
7 


■i.ii 


60 


TRIAL   OF   LOUD    BTIULINa. 


i>     I 

•  ■  - 


''!!■. 


established  it.  He  Imd  received  it  from  liis  ngcnt,  Mr.  Banks,  who, 
in  a  letlcr  of  I7lh  March,  1829,  had  given  iiim  a  detailed  account  of 
"the  fortunate  (Uscovery"  he  had  jufefniade  in  Irehuul  of  the  abridged 
copy  or  excerpt  of  (he  charter  of  Novo  danuis  of  1039." 

The  many  learned  counsel  who  had  cxanjined  the  document  had 
not  a  doubt  as  lo  its  genuineness.  Mr.  Lockhart,  Lord  Stirling's  most 
respectable  solicitor  or  agent,  says  "diat  no  suspicion  ever  crossed  his 
mind  as  to  the  gcmiinencss  of  tiie  document;"  and  he  continued  in  this 
belief  to  the  last.  Lord  Stirling,  soon  after  receiving  the  excerpt  from 
Mr.  Hanks,  in  1829,  ''threw  himself  upon  the  tender  mercies"  of  the 
principal  prosecuting  ofllcer  for  Scotland,  and  exhibited  the  excerpt  to 
Sir  William  llae,  the  Lord  Advocate,  who  had  been  directed  by  the 
Ministers  to  consider  a  petition  of  Lord  Stirling  relative  to  the  lands  of 
Nova  Scotia  and  Canada.  Mr.  Corric,  a  most  respectable  solicitor  of 
Birmingham,  says:  ''Nothing  escaped  from  the  Lord  Advocate  from 
which  he  could  infer  that  he  suspected  the  document,  but  the  reverse. 
Mr.  Maundell,  of  Great  George  street,  attended  each  day  before  the 
Lord  Advocate.  I  do  not  recollect  or  believe  that  he  ever  expressed  a 
•uspicion  on  the  subject  of  any  of  the  documents.  The  Lord  Advo- 
cate said  that  he  saw  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  petitioner  was  Earl  of 
Stirling,  and  had  a  right  to  that  title;  that  he  had  no  doubt  about  the 
charter,  but  he  would  not  advise  his  Majesty  to  grant  a  new  patent  or 
charter,  because  Lord  Stirling  had  a  legal  remedy  in  Scotland,  refer- 
ring, I  believe,  to  a  process  for  proof  per  tenorem." 

Believing,  as  Lord  Stirling  did,  that  this  excerpt  was  a  genuine 
document,  which  more  recent  investigations  Jiavc  fully  proved,  he  pre- 
sented the  excerpt  in  an  action  for  proving  the  tenor,  the  purpose  of 
which  was  to  obtain  a  new  charier  upon  proving  the  tenor  or  sub- 
stance, and  loss  of  the  ancient  charter.  In  that  action,  brought  in 
1829,  he  failed;  but  not  on  account  of  any  doubts  thrown  upon  the 
genuineness  of  the  excerpt,  but  for  the  simple  reason,  slated  by  the 
Judges,  that  ihe  excerpt  did  not  appear  to  be  a  copy  of  a  perfected 
charter,  but  of  a  privy  seal  precept  for  a  charter. 

From  that  moment  he  refused  to  enrol  among  his  proofs  a  document 
which  had  any  incompleteness  or  defects  which  could  not  be  explained. 
It  was  only  through  the  carelessness  of  Lord  Stirling's  agents  that  a 
document,  which  he  had  not  thought  of  for  nine  years,  remained 
among  the  files  of  the  court. 

If  this  document  had  been  a  forgery,  why  would  the  fabricator  have 


Ranks,  who, 
(I  uccnuiU  of 
llio  abridged 

sciiincnt  had 
liiling's  inosl 
r  ci'osdcd  hisi 
linucd  in  this 
excerpt  fioin 
cios"  of  the 
Ijc  excerpt  to 
ccted  by  the 
•  the  lands  of 
le  solicitor  of 
Ivocate  from 
L  the  reverse. 
y  before  the 
r  expressed  a 
!  Lord  Advo- 
r  was  Earl  of 
ibt  about  the 
ew  patent  or 
olland,  refer- 

s  a  genuine 
Dvcd,  he  pre- 
le  purpose  of 
cnor  or  sub- 
,  brought  in 
vn  upon  the 
stated  by  the 
f  a  perfected 

s  a  document 
)e  explained, 
agents  that  a 
rs,  remained 

bricator  have 


Tni  VL    OF    LORD    STinr.I.Vff. 


51 


nllowcd  (his  proof  of  guilt,  which  ho  no  longer  relied  on  as  evidence 
of  jiis  claims,  to  remain  in  the  hands  of  his  enemies?  If  it  had  been 
suspected  (o  be  a  forgery,  why  was  it  allowed  to  ren)ain  unaccused  for 
nine  years  by  the  agotUs  of  the  Orown,  who  would  have  eagerly 
availed  themselves  of  at>y  means  of  crushing  so  formidable  an  oppo- 
nent? 

Hut  it  served  the  purpose  of  the  Crown  to  cormect  this  excerpt  \>ith 
the  French  documents,  and  to  assort  tluit  upon  those  Lord  Stirling 
based  all  his  claims.  -     #     i 

If  the  excerpt  was  believed  to  be  a  forgery,  why  did  not  the  Crown 
prosecute  the  only  party  who  could  have  committed  it?  The  evidence 
of  Mr.  Lockluut  and  the  letters  olFered  in  evidence  proved  (liat  Lord 
Stirling  hod  received  this  document  from  Mr.  Hanks,  in  Ireland.  The 
forgery,  if  it  had  been  conunitled,  had  been  done  by  Hanks,  and  not 
Lord  Stirling.  These  letters  the  Crown  counsel  would  not  allow  to 
be  read.  Banks  had  become  their  tool,  and  had  aided  them  in  hunt- 
ing up  the  objections  to  the  excerpt  upon  which  they  rested  their  case. 
The  prosecution  of  the  real  fabricator,  if  fabrication  there  was,  would 
not  have  served  their  purpose. 

We  repeat  it,  granting  the  excerpt  to  have  been  fabricated,  it  proves 
nothing  against  Lord  Stirling.  It  does  not  weaken  in  the  slightest 
respect  his  claims.  The  correspondence  with  Banks  proves  'hat  Lord 
Stirling  was  innocent  of  any  fabrication.  The  jury  found  this  by 
their  verdict.  It  had  never  been  used  or  relied  on  at  the  services  as 
evidence,  and  the  verdict  of  the  jury  which  impeached  it  declared,  no 
more  than  had  been  already  acknowledged,  that  it  was  not  admissible 
as  evidence  without  further  attestation.  ,. 

Still  we  have  no  doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  documents,  and 
the  attacks  made  at  the  trial  caused  an  investigation  which  completely 
satisfied  Lord  Stirling  and  his  friends  as  to  its  authenticity. 

There  is  a  broad  distinction  between  the  genuineness  or  authenticity 
of  a  document,  and  the  sufficiency  of  that  document  as  evidence.  It  is 
in  the  latter  respect  alone  that  the  attacks  made  upon  this  document 
have  any  force.  i       -  i  v . 

We  have  proved,  as  we  must  think  conclusively,  the  genuineness  of 
the  French  documents,  and  we  claim  the  benefit  of  the  rule  given  by 
Lord  Meadowbank  to  the  jury:  ''If  you  are  satisfied  that  the  proof  is 
clear  that  any  of  these  sets  of  documents  are  forged,  but  that  the  evi- 
dence with  respect  to  the  others  is  not  so  conclusive,  you  will  have  to 


62 


TllIAL    OF    LORD    STIRLING. 


V      1 


■■i:\^ 


mnke  up  your  niipds  whether,  considering  that  the  whole  are  so  con- 
nected willi  and  bear  upon  each  other,  there  can  be  any  good  reason 
for  fixing  a  character  upon  one  which  must  not  also  belong  to  the 
other."  No  one  believing  the  genuineness  of  Mallet's  note,  even 
without  the  other  evidence,  can  doubt  that  the  charter  of  Novo  damus, 
of  1G39  existed,  or  can  conceive  it  improbable  that  a  copy  or  excerpt  of 
such  a  charter  should  have  been  made  by  the  solicitor  of  the  Stirling 
family  in  Ireland. 

To  understand  the  circumstances  under  which  this  copy  was  proba- 
bly made,  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  reader  to  know  certain  facts, 
which  are  fully  established  by  documentary  evidence.  During  the 
troubles  in  Scotland  the  Dowager  Countess  of  Stirling  resided  in  Ire- 
land with  her  daughter,  the  Countess  of  Mount  Alexander,  for- 
merly Viscountess  Montgomerie.  Afterwards  the  Countess  of  Mount 
Alexander  left  the  original  charter  of  Novo  damns,  received  from 
her  mother,  with  a  Mr.  Conycrs,  from  whose  hands  it  came  into 
the  custody  of  his  son  Mr.  T.  Conyers,  a  master  in  Chancery,  and 
eohcitor  of  the  family  of  Montgomerie.  It  appears  that,  after  the 
<leath  of  the  fifth  Earl,  Mr.  Conycrs  delivered  the  original  charter 
of  Novo  damns  to  the  sixth  Earl  de  jure,  Uev.  John  Alexander, 
of  Dublin.  A  box  conUiining  this  charter,  with  many  other  fam- 
ily parchments,  was  stolen  in  England  from  the  widow  of  the  sixth 
Earl  de  jure,  as  there  is  every  reason  to  believe,  by  a  sei;vant  of  Mr. 
William  Trumbull,  a  collateral  descendant  of  the  fifth  Earl.  When 
Mr.  Trumbull  made  arrangements  with  Gen.  Alexander  to  unite  with 
him  in  prosecuting  the  claim  to  the  Stirling  estates,  this  box,  contain- 
ing the  charter,  seen  by  Horace  Walpoie,  and  many  other  papers,  was 
delivered  to  Gen.  Alexander.  We  have  not  space  at  this  time  to  pre- 
sent the  documentary  history  by  which  these  facts  are  established,  for 
we  have  made  this  brief  digression  simply  for  the  purpose  of  explain- 
ing the  connexion  of  Mr.  Conyers  with  the  excerpt. 

The  excerpt,  consisting  of  over  two  thousand  words,  is  written 
wholly  in  Latin.  It  is  acknowledged  to  correspond  in  every  particular 
with  the  Chancery  Latin  of  the  ancient  charters;  not  a  single  error  of 
phraseology  was  detected  by  the  acute  lawyers  who  examined  it. 
Since  the  writing  of  Latin  has  almost  wholly  gone  out  of  use,  it  is 
utterly  inconceivable  that  any  modern  forger  could  have  composed  and 
fabricated  a  law  document  in  a  dead  language,  which  would  not  have 
exposed  to  a  nice  criticism  its  falsity  and  recent  origin  in  a  hundred 


e  are  so  con- 
good  reason 
sloiig  to  the 
s  note,  even 
S^ovo  dam  us, 
or  excerpt  of 
'  tlie  Stirling 

y  was  proba- 
certain  facts, 

During  the 
sided  in  Ire- 
!xander,  for- 
ss  of  Mount 
cceivcd  from 
it  came  into 
liancery,  and 
at,  after  the 
;jinal  charter 
1  Alexander, 
T  Other  fam- 
of  the  sixth 
i;vant  of  Mr. 
:*arl.  When 
to  unite  with 
30X,  contain- 

papers,  was 

time  to  pre- 
ablished,  for 

of  explain- 

is  written 
ry  particular 
nqfle  error  of 
xamincd  it. 
of  use,  it  is 
)mposed  and 
jld  not  have 
n  a  hundred 


TRIAL    OP    LORD    STIRLING. 


63 


particulars.  And  yet  all  that  Blackwood  can  find  is  the  objection  that 
the  term  "consanguineus  noster"  is  applied  to  Peers,  and  never  to  a 
Commoner;  while  the  alleged  charter  twice  applied  that  title  to  Alex- 
ander, the  son  of  the  Peer,  consequently  '^a  Commoner,  and  not  the 
Earl  himself!"  an  objection  both  absurd  and  false.  Tlie  term  might 
naturally  be  applied  to  the  son  of  a  Peer,  styled  as  Lord  Alexander. 
But  the  title  of  cousin  teas  applied  in  the  excerpt  to  the  Earl  himself, 
as  follows:  ''We  give,  A/C,  <kc.  to  our  right  trusty  and  well-beloved 
cousin  and  councillor  William,  Earl  of  Stirling,"  «fcc.,  ("per  contuo 
et  predilecto  nostro  consanguineo  et  consiliurio,  W^illielmo,  Coniiti  de 
Stirling.") 

How  rotten  a  cause  must  that  be,  which  is  reduced  to  quibbles  and 
falsehoods  like  this. 

The  excerpt  had  evidently  been  copied  by  Mr.  Conyers  or  his  clerk 
into  a  book  or  register,  and  the  leaves  afterwards  cut  out,  (but  there  is 
nothing  to  show  that  they  had  recently  been  cut  out,)  folded  up, 
endorsed,  and  placed  away  with  other  Stirling  papers.  There  were 
red  lines  about  the  margin  which  favor  that  supposition.  This  was 
used  as  an  argument  against  the  antiquity  of  the  document,  and  is 
a  fair  specimen  of  the  reasoning  and  proof  on  the  trial.  *A  witness 
swore  that  red  lines  were  not  introduced  into  Scotland  till  1780, 
or  at  least  had  not  come  under  his  notice  till  that  time. 

The  writing  was  in  an  old  hand,  different  from  the  Chancery  hand 
in  which  charters  in  Scotland  are  written.  A  witness  precognosed, 
but  not  called,  for  the  defence,  who  had  been  employed  for  years  in  a 
solicitor's  office  in  London,  was  shown  the  excerpt,  and  states  that  it 
was  on  precisely  the  same  kind  of  English  court  hand  as  old  English 
deeds,  and,  being  in  Latin,  resembled  them  entirely.  Eminent  law- 
yers from  Dublin  were  brought  at  a  great  expense  to  Edinburgh,  who 
had  with  them  ancient  registers  and  documents,  and  would  have  proved 
that  all  the  old  law  writings  in  Ireland  of  that  date  were  in  this  style 
and  hand.  They  would  also  have  proved  that  the  marginal  reference, 
"Reg.  Mag.  Sig.,"  which  a  witness  swore  was  not  introduced  into 
Scotland  till  1780,  was  the  ancient,  and  certainly  the  most  natural, 
mode  of  making  such  a  reference  to  charters  of  the  Great  Seal  in  Ire- 
land. These  witnesses  would  have  proved  the  genuineness  of  the 
initials  and  flourish  of  Thomas  Conyers.  They  also  would  have 
proved  the  authenticity  of  an  ancient  affidavit,  libelled  on  hy  the 
Crown,  signed  by  Henry  Hovenden,  and  sworn  to  before  one  of  the 
Harons  of  the  Exchequcfir  of  IrelamI,  jhuwing  that  the  existence  of 


tail 


.  ■ ' 


54 


TRIAL    OF    LORD    STIRLING. 


m 
m'. 


i^t'i 


■'':  i 


i 


:.-\ 


the  original  charter  of  Novo  datniis^  in  the  hands  of  Tliomas  Conyers, 
and  the  genuineness  of  a  certificate  of  Thomas  Conyers  to  the  same 
effect.  These  witnesses  had  been  brought  from  Ireland  by  General 
D'Aguiicir  at  an  expense  of  nearly  =^500.  Owing  to  the  lateness  of 
their  arrival  in  Edinburgh,  the  Crown  counsel  were  not  aware  of  the 
extent  and  importance  of  their  testimony,  and  therefore  these  precog- 
nitions were  not  taken;  but  when  they  were  iPt;oduced,  and  took  their 
places  in  the  witness-box,  with  the  ancient  registers  and  writings  in 
their  hands,  and  the  court  was  made  acquainted  with  the  points  they 
were  about  to  substantiate,  the  Judges,  who  were  so  vigilantly  guard- 
ing the  Crown's  interest,  seeing  that  the  proof  would  be  fatal  to  the 
infamous  ?cheme  of  the  Crown  lawyers,  were  alarmed;  and,  after 
retiring  for  secret  consultation,  ruled,  amidst  the  murmurs  of  indig- 
nation of  the  vast  crowd  assembled,  that  the  witnesses  should  not  be 
heard!  .  .        ^j. 

Three  witnesses,  holding  Crown  offices,  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  document  was  not  ancient.  This  testimony  is  completely  neutral- 
ized by  the  practical  assertion  of  the  genuineness  of  the  document  by 
the  lawyers.  Lord  Advocate,  and  Judges,  who,  nine  years  before,  hav- 
ing it  under  the  closest  examination,  had  no  doubt  as  to  its  genuine- 
ness. One  chemist  made  experiments  on  the  paper,  which  proved  it, 
he  thought,  to  be  recent.  Another  chemist,  employed  by  the  Crown, 
made  experiments,  which  proved  the  paper  to  be  old.  This  was  a 
specimen  of  the  uncertainty  and  vagueness  of  the  testimony.  The 
Judge,  Meadowbank,  thought  it  a  proof  of  the  falsity  of  the  document 
that  the  charter  granted  a  part  of  New  England,  which  the  Judge  said 
the  Scotch  Crown  had  no  power  to  grant.  Yet  the  undoubted  charter 
of  Canada,  registere  '  in  Scotland,  contains  a  grant  of  lands  of  New 
England  and  New  York. 

Still  there  are  two  defects  or  inconsistencies  in  the  excerpt,  which, 
although  furnishing  no  evidence  of  fabrication,  are  not  at  first  easy  to 
explain. 

These  difiiculties,  or  inconsistencies,  are,  that  at  the  end  of  the  ex- 
cerpt are  the  words  gratis  per  signetum;  which  words  are  found 
only  on  a  Privy  Seal  precept,  and  not  on  a  complete  charter;  while  the 
excerpt  has  the  testing  clause,  which  ought  not  to  be  on  a  Privy  Seal 
precept.  The  second  inconsistency  is  that  the  testing  part,  having  the 
nair  'iS  of  the  witnesses,  but  not  their  signatures,  has  the  name  of  John, 
Arcf  dshop  of  St.  Andrews,  Chancellor  of  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland, 


•)   ; 


TRIAL   OF   LORD   STIRLING. 


55 


omas  Conyers, 
ers  to  the  same 
ind  by  General 
the  lateness  of 
3t  aware  of  the 
e  these  precog- 
,  and  took  their 
nd  writings  in 
the  points  they 
gilantly  guard- 
be  fatal  to  the 
ed;  and,  after 
niurs  of  indig- 
?  should  7iot  be 

le  opinion  that 
iletciy  neutrai- 
j  document  by 
js  before,  hav- 
to  its  genuine- 
hich  proved  it, 
yy  the  Crown, 
.  This  was  a 
Limony.     The 

the  document 
the  Judge  said 
oubted  charter 

lands  of  New 

ccerpt,  which, 
at  first  easy  to 

nd  of  the  ex- 
ds  are  found 
ter;  while  the 

a  Privy  Seal 
It,  having  the 
lanie  of  John, 

of  Scotland, 


and  nine  others,  with  the  date  of  the  7th  of  December,  1639;  while,  in 
fact,  the  Archbishop  of  St.  Andrews  ceased  to  be  Chancellor  on  the 
13th  of  November,  1639,  and  died  on  the  26th  of  November,  1Q39. 

We  present  the  explanation  of  these  inconsistencies,  given  by  the 
lawyers  in  Scotland,  who  have  still  entire  confidence  in  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  excerpt. 

It  is  believed  that  Mr.  Conyers,  who  was  in  1723  the  possessor  of 
the  original  charter  of  7th  December,  1639,  and  was  a  lawyer  and 
master  of  Chancery,  was  also  the  meln  of  business  or  steward  of  the 
noble  family  of  Montgomerie.  Hence  it  is  inferred  that  he  and  his 
father  had  been  for  many  years  the  depositaries  of  many  other  papers 
of  the  Montgomerie  and  Stirling  families.  The  endorsement,  with  the  " 
initials  and  flourish  on  the  outside  leaf  of  the  excerpt,  seem  clearly  to 
prove  that  the  document  was  written  by  one  of  t  le  clerks  of  Mr.  Con- 
yers for  his  own  use.  The  form  of  the  excerpt  is  of  that  class  of  docu- 
ments called  mandates  or  precepts,  and  the  words  per  signetum  are 
applicable  to  a  mandate  under  the  Privy  Seal.  The  clause  descriptive 
of  the  witnesses  most  certainly  ought  not  to  have  been  inserted.  Un 
this  account  it  would  appear  that  the  excerpt  was  prepared,  not  from 
an  original  perfect  charter,  but  froma^iVs^  draft  of  an  intended 
charter,  written  for  the  Earl's  approbation,  (as  was  usual  when  such 
royal  grants  were  conceded  by  the  Sovereign,)  long  before  the  great 
seal  was  affixed  to  the  completed  charter.  This,  precedents  it  is  said 
will  show,  might  have  been  done  fifteen  or  sixteen  months  b(  ore  the 
7th  December,  1639.  At  the  moment  of  drawing  such  a  draft,  the 
Archbishop  of  St.  Andrews  was  still  probably  Chancellor  of  Scotland, 
and  the  insertion  of  his  name  then  as  one  of  the  proposed  witnesses 
could  not  have  been  an  extraordinary  or  irregular  proceeding.  Now, 
after  having  given  up  the  original  charter  to  the  sixth  Earl,  when  he 
succeeded  to  the  honors,  it  is  thought  that  Mr.  Conyers  fiad  had  the 
expert  made  for  his  own  private  reference  from  the  Jirst  draft  remain- 
ing in  the  Montgomerie  charter  chest,  and  not  from  the  original  char- 
ter. This  theory,  which  presents  nothing  improbable,  enables  us 
satisfactorily  to  account  for  the  few  errors  in  the  excerpt,  otherwise  so 
unimpeachable.  The  addition  of  the  real  date  of  the  perfect  charter 
upon  an  excerpt  taken  from  a  first  draft,  which  could  not  have  borne 
any  date,  is  accounted  for  by  supposing  that  Mr.  Conyers,  of  his  own 
will,  caused  the  dale  to  be  added  in  order  to  bear  it  in  his  remem- 
brance. ,  .  r  < 


56 


TRIAL   OF   LORD   STIRLING. 


■l^-'" 


m 


*■..  v.. 


.,-•• 


r\: 


['%■  ;. 


It  was  argued,  that  if  there  had  been  any  charter  of  Novo  damus, 
it  would  have  been  recorded  in  the  different  stages  through  which 
it  went  to  completion  in  the  records  of  four  different  departments.  To 
this,  it  is  said,  that  the  Earl  of  Stirling,  long  Secretary  and  Keeper  of 
the  Seals,  and  who  issued  his  own  mandate,  possessing  in  consequence 
of  his  exalted  station  extraordinary  powers,  could  have  caused  the  ori- 
ginal signature,  under  the  King's  sign  manual,  to  be  carried  jDer^a^^u;;^ 
to  the  Director  of  Chancery  as  a  sufficient  authority  for  preparing  and 
sealing  the  charter.  In  such  a  case,  the  records  would  not  show  the  usual 
successive  steps  for  the  completion  of  the  charter.  It  is  admitted  that 
twelve  leaves  in  the  67th  volume  of  the  records  of  that  period  are 
missing.  The  loss  of  these  leaves  and  the  defects  of  registration  arc 
more  naturally  accounted  for  by  the  disturbances  of  the  times.  We 
shall  adopt  the  language  of  the  very  able  writer  in  the  Democratic 
Review,  who  has  discussed  the  question  of  Lord  Stirling's  rights  with 
great  abihty.   .  ■  ^    <■  '  j 

"Clarendon  gives  an  elaborate  picture  of  these  distempered  times, 
which  should  be  consulted  by  all  who  ask  the  reason  why  formalities 
of  registration  have  not  been  attended  to  by  the  Crown's  grantees  at 
Edinburgh  in  1639-40.  The  truth  is,  that  they  could  not  transact  any 
business  whatever  there  but  by  proxy,  for  to  have  presented  themselves 
would  have  been  to  hazard,  if  not  to  forfeit,  their  lives.  And  if  the 
Earl  of  Stirling  obtained  by  stealth  the  registration  of  his  patent  of 
Novo  damns,  in  the  57th  volume  of  the  Records,  as  we  believe  he 
did,  the  state  of  feeling  there  against  every  friend  and  counsellor  of 
Charles  was  such  that  fully  accounts  for  its  being  torn  from  its  place 
by  anybody,  amidst  the  applause  of  the  whole  community.  The 
wonder  is,  not  that  it  is  gone  with  the  twelve  missing  leaves,  and  that 
the  indexes  made  up  long  after  say  nothing  of  it,  but  it  had  been  a 
greater  wonder  had  it  been  allowed  to  remain.  In  fact,  when  we  look 
back  at  that  day,  when  universal  indignation  possessed  the  people 
against  the  Court,  we  would  be  as  much  astonished  to  find  the  charter 
in  question  on  the  register,  as  to  have  found  that  granted  to  the  town  of 
Edinburgh  torn  out.  The  existence  of  the  one  and  the  non-existence 
of  the  other  are  only  equivalent  proofs  of  the  state  of  the  public  mind. 
It  had  not  been  possible  for  a  royal  grant  of  British  North  America, 
made  part  of  the  very  county  of  Edinburgh  for  the  express  purpose  of 
vesting  the  title  in  a  courtier,  to  exist  on  the  record.  It  was  sure  to  be 
■destroyed  there  at  any  rate,  by  some  person  or  other." 


TRIAL   OF   LORD    STIRLING. 


67 


Vovo  damus, 
rough  which 
tments.  To 
nd  Keeper  of 
consequence 
lused  the  ori- 
idpersaltum 
)reparing  and 
how  the  usual 
admitted  that 
lat  period  are 
gistration  are 
i  times.  We 
e  Democratic 
fa  rights  with 

npered  times, 
liy  formalities 
's  grantees  at 
t  transact  any 
ed  themselves 
And  if  the 
lis  patent  of 
believe  he 
counsellor  of 
from  its  place 
unity.     The 
.ves,  and  that 
had  been  a 
vhen  we  look 
the  people 
d  the  charter 
0  the  town  of 
ion-existence 
public  mind, 
th  America, 
!s  purpose  of 
as  sure  to  be 


To  this  it  may  be  added,  the  charter  may  not  have  been  a  Scotch 
charter  at  all,  and  no  registration  may  have  been  attempted  in  Scot- 
land where  political  prejudices  were  so  strong  against  the  favorite  cour- 
tier of  the  unpopular  King. 

Other  charters,  purely  American,  and  onlp  recorded  in  America,  for 
instance,  that  of  Sr.  Ferdinando  George,  were  granted  to  several  dis- 
tinguished men,  who,  at  their  own  risk  and  charges,  undertook  to 
colonize  diflerent  portions  of  the  western  continent.  The  charter  of 
Novo  damus,  referring  particularly  to  estates  in  America,  may  have 
been  recorded  only  at  Port  Royal  or  Annapolis.  Thus  all  the  grand 
objections  founded  on  the  want  of  registration  would  be  overthrown. 

We  have  already  dwelt  too  long  upon  the  question  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  excerpt,  which  the  jury  declared  was  not  forged  by  Lord 
Stirling,  or  uttered  by  him  knowing  it  to  be  forged,and  which,  whether 
authentic  or  not,  is  wholly  unnecessary  to  support  his  rights,  and  hasten 
to  a  consideration  of  the  De  Porquet  packet,  which  contains  evidence 
in  English  perfectly  conclusive  as  to  Lord  Stirling's  descent.  Little 
need  here  be  said.  These  documents  were  attacked  with  the  same 
reckless  and  indiscriminating  ferocity  as  the  other  papers  by  both  the 
Crown  counsel,  and  court.  See  how  Lord  Meadowbank  pressed  this 
point  in  his  charge  to  the  jury.  <<lt  is  a  matter  for  your  consideration. 
to  say  whether  there  are  any  grounds  for  your  doubting  that  the  Eng> 
lish  documents  are  forged  also."  But  these  documents  were  English. 
The  jury  could  read  and  understand  them.  No  longer  compelled  to^ 
trust  to  French  experts  and  iScotch  lawyers,  and  to  pass  on  papers  in  a. 
language  which  they  could  not  comprehend,  they  vindicated  their 
sturdy  common  sense  as  soon  as  they  could  sec  and  judge  for  them- 
selves. They  found  the  English  documents  in  the  De  Porquet  packet 
genuine— a  judgment  most  mortifying  to  the  Crown,  for  still  Lord 
Stirling  was  left  with  his  best  defences  assoiled  of  suspicion. 

We  may  remark  here  that  it  is  no  part  of  our  present  object  to  prove 
the  pedigree  of  the  Earl  of  Stirling.  A  paper  as  long  as  the  present 
would  be  required  to  present  and  discuss  the  vast  mass  of  evidence  by 
which  the  pedigree  is  established.  Although  we  may  avail  ourselves 
of  another  occasion  to  present  this  interesting  evidence,  we  consider 
the  question  of  pedigree  settled  by  the  services  of  the  juries,  and  by 
the  opinions  so  distinctly  expressed  by  Lord  Brougham  and  other  ex- 
Chancellors  in  the  House  of  Lords,  in  1845,  that  the  Scotch  courts 
had  no  right  to  reduce  the  services.  We  confidently  rely  upon  a  final 
8 


M 


58 


TRIAL   OF    LORD    STIRLING. 


W' 
f. 


f:- 


I  T 


and  (riuniplmnt  decision  upon  this  point  in  ihe  House  of  Lords  as  soon 
as  the  means  for  prosecuting  the  appeal  are  provided. 

We  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  reply  to  the  foul  aspersions  upon 
Lord  Stirling's  character  contained  in  the  articles  of  Blackwood  and 
the  arguments  of  (he  prosecuting  officers  and  presiding  judge. 
'  No  other  answer  need  be  given  to  these  exaggerations  and  inventions 
than  the  testimony  given  at  the  trial  by  Lord  Stirling's  friends.  We 
give  from  the  Crown  report  the  testimony  of  two  only[of  the  witnesses, 
without  conuncnt,  simply  premising  that,  strong  as  it  is,  it  has  been 
toned  down  by  the  officers  of  State,  who  revised  the  report  before  its 
publication,  and  have  suffered  no  reference  to  be  made  to  the  cnthu- 
siastic  reception  of  this  evidence  by  the  audience. 

Mr.  Harding,  cousin  of  late  Sir  Robert  Peel,  said  of  Lord  Stirling, 
«He  is  a  man  of  excellent  moral  principle  and  honor.  As  a  father,  as 
a  husband,  and  as  a  friend,  his  character  is  one  of  the  very  best.  At 
school,  he  was  loved  by  every  one.  When  I  knew  him  again,  I  had 
occasion  to  know  a  great  deal  of  him,  from  the  time  of  his  first  calling 
upon  me.  In  his  letters,  there  is  not  an  observation  that  would  not  do 
honor  to  any  one,  as  far  as  the  heart  is  concerned.  There  is  no  man 
in  existence  more  honorable  than  he  is." 

Col.  D'Aguilar,  (now  Lieutenant-General  and  Governor  of  Ports- 
mouth,) said:  ^ 

"  I  am  at  the  head  of  the  adjutant-general's  stall*  in  Ireland.  My 
first  commission  was  dated  in  1790,  about  forty  years  ago;  I  was  at 
school  with  him  (Lord  Stirling)  near  Birmingham,  at  the  Rev.  Mr. 
^Corrie's,  brother  of  Mr.  Josiah  Corrie." 

•'  Did  you  visit  his  family?" 

''*  YeS;  often.  I  may  slate  the  circumstance.  I  was  at  that  time  at 
Ti  considerable  distance  from  my  friends.  Lord  Stirling's  family  re- 
sided in  the  immediate  neighborhood.  We  were  class-fellows.  His 
place  was  generally  immediately  above  me;  he  also  showed  kmdness 
to  me ;  and  it  brought  us  more  or  less  together.  When  he  went  home 
at  the  short  vacation,  he  invariably  took  me  with  him;  so  that  I  had 
the  opportunity  of  living  in  habits  of  great  intimacy  with  him;  not 
only  with  himself,  but  with  his  family.  The  character  of  his  family 
was  in  the  highest  degree  respectable.  I  may  be  a  little  prejudiced, 
for  I  received  such  affectionate  kindness  and  hospitality  from  (he  fami- 
ly that  I  can  never  forget  it.  Their  aflcction  for  me  was  unbounded, 
and  I  am  here  to  repay  the  debt  of  gratitude  which  I  owed,  to  themj  I 


f  Lords  ns  soon 

spersions  upon 
lackwood  nnd 
judge. 

and  inventions 
I  friends.  We 
the  witnesses, 
is,  it  has  been 
sport  before  its 
}  to  tlie  enthu- 

Lord  StirHng, 
As  a  fatiier,  ns 
very  best.  At 
n  again,  I  had 
lis  first  calling 
L  would  not  do 
ere  is  no  man 

rnor  of  Ports- 
Ireland.  My 
ago;  I  was  at 
the  Rev.  Mr. 


at  that  time  at 
g's  family  re- 
fcllows.  His 
Dwed  kindness 
he  went  home 
so  that  I  had 
with  him;  not 
of  his  family 
e  prejudiced, 
rom  the  fami- 
is  unbounded, 
ed.  to  them  J  I 


TRIAL   OP   LORD    STIRLING. 


69 


was  separated  from  him  by  circumstances.  1  corresponded  with  him 
and  his  family;  when  I  was  in  London,  (1830,  and  subsequently,)  I 
saw  a  great  deal  of  him,  and  was  frequently  at  his  house,  and  he  in 
mine;  his  children  corresponded  with  my  children.  There  was  no 
event  of  his  life,  more  particularly  that  connected  with  the  claim  and 
title,  that  he  did  not  confide  to  nie.  As  to  his  character  as  a  man  of 
honor,  as  a  good  parent,  and  a  good  husband,  I  think  my  presence 
here  is  the  best  answer  to  that  question.  Nothing  on  earth  could  have 
induced  mc  to  take  the  part  1  have  taken,  to  stand  before  the  court 
where  I  do,  (beside  his  friend,)  if  I  did  not  think  Lord  Stirling  to  be 
incapable  of  a  dishonorable  action.  I  beg  to  say,  that  if  the  corres- 
pondence of  an  individual  is  any  index  to  his  mind  and  character,  that 
1  have  in  my  possession  the  most  ample  proofs  to  enable  me  to  form 
my  opinion  of  him." 

The  crown  report  omits  to  state  that  General  D'Aguilar  in  giving 
this  testimony  from  the  dock,  where  with  a  sublime  and  chivalric  devo- 
tion he  had  taken  his  place  by  the  side  of  his  friend,  was  frequently 
interrupted  by  the  shouts  of  applause  of  the  vast  audience,  who  sym- 
pathized so  deeply  with  the  prisoner.  •  '4* 

The  conduct  of  the  prosecuting  officers  throughout  this  trial  was 
characterized  by  a  determination,  and  even  ferocity,  which  was  due 
not  merely  to  official  zeal,  but  to  deep  personal  interest  in  the  result. 
The  leading  Crown  counsel  was  Ivory,  the  solicitor-general.  This  ad- 
vocate had  had  the  management  of  the  civil  suit  against  Lord  Stirling 
ever  since  1833.  He  was  made  solicitor-general  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  conducting  the  case  in  the  criminal  court,  and  appeared  in  his 
official  gown  for  the  first  time  at  this  trial.  He  was  assistfid  by  Mr. 
Innes  and  Roderic  McK^nzie.  The  latter  had  been  crown  agent  in 
this  case  since  1833.  The  sum  of  .J'40,000  had  been  pledged  to  Ivory 
and  McKenzic  by  private  parties  in  possession  of  the  English  and 
Scotch  estates,  on  the  condition  that  Lord  Stirling  should  be  broken 
down.  Ill  1837,  Messrs.  Ivory  and  McKenzie  made  repeated  over- 
tures to  Lord  Stirling's  agent,  Mr.  Lockhart,  to  compromise  the  case, 
and  complained  bitterly  of  Lord  Stirling's  obstinacy  in  refusing  to  ne^ 
goliate.  They  desired  that  the  negotiations  should  be  carried  on 
through  them,  that  they  might  secure  their  reward.  liOrd  Stirling  re- 
fused to  treat  with  any  parties  except  the  ministers.  Of  course  all  the 
influence  of  the  Crown  officers  was  brought  to  bear  upon  the  ministers 
o  prevent  a  settlement  of  the  case  by  them,  which  at  that  time,  1837, 


60 


TRIAL   OF   LORD   STIRLING. 


.> 


'\  V' 


!• 

i  ■ ,'  ■ 


It- 


after  the  suppression  of  the  Canadian  rebellion,  the  Government  were 
inclined  to  favor.  Here  we  deem  it  our  duty  to  express  our  own  doubts, 
as  well  as  those  of  Lord  Stirling,  whether  the  criminal  efforts  of  the 
crown  agents  and  counsel  to  destroy  his  case  by  tampering  with  his 
documents,  and  suborning  corrupt  witnesses,  could  have  been  known 
to  the  Lord  Advocate,  and  to  the  ministers  and  higher  olTicers  of  the 
British  Government.  The  British  Government  has  in  this  case  refused 
to  do  right;  but  could  they  have  authorized  such  base  and  cowardly 
wrong?  Indeed,  several  of  its  members  have  indignantly  denied  that 
they  had  instigated  criminal  suit,  saying  that  they  "  knew  that  Lord 
Stirling  was  a  perfectly  honorable  man."  Still  the  Government  have 
been  anxious  to  suppress  the  exposure  of  these  iniquitous  proceedings, 
which  would  have  thrown  so  much  discredit  upon  the  Crown.  They 
induced  Mr.  Wallace  to  withdraw  a  motion  made  by  him  in  the  British 
House  of  Commons  in  1839,  for  a  detailed  report  of  the  expenses  in 
the  Lord  Advocate's  office  for  this  trial  alone,  officially  reported  to  be 
the  enormous  sum  of  ^"16,000,  eighty  thousand  dollars} 

Of  the  conduct  of  the  defence,  we  speak  with  that  pain  which  every 
one  must  feel  when  the  honor  of  his  profession  has  been  violated. 
We  shrink  even  from  expressing  our  own  convictions,  and  would  seek 
for  some  excuse  for  the  management  of  a  cause  which  seems  explica- 
ble only  by  supposing  excessive  stupidity  or  bad  faith.  How,  except 
by  conceiving  the  most  painful  suspicions,  can  it  be  explained  that 
witnesses — some  of  whom  had  been  brought  at  immense  expense  to  at- 
tend at  the  trial,  who  would  not  only  have  crushed  the  case  of  the 
prosecution,  but  have  hurled  back  upon  the  accusers  the  charge  of  fab- 
rication— were  not  called?  We  could  wish  to  believe  that  the  leading 
counsel,  Mr.  Robertson,  seeing  the  whole  power  of  the  Government, 
and  all  the  weight  of  the  court  brought  to  bear  upon  his  client — seeing 
him  doomed  by  the  remorseless  tyrarmy  of  the  Crown — hoped  to  avert 
a  portion  of  this  doom  by  "saving  the  honor  of  the  Crown,  compro- 
mised by  its  agents."  Perhaps  he  felt  that  he  could  only  save  his 
client's  liberty  by  the  sacrifice  of  his  cause,  when,  instead  of  manfully 
defending  all  the  rights  which  but  for  him  were  so  impregnably  fortified,^ 
he  abandoned  his  strong  position  by  such  words  as  these:  "Let  the 
visionary  coronet  of  vain  ambition  be  plucked  from  his  bewildered 
brow;  let  the  visionary  prospects  of  vast  possessions  and  boundless 
wealth  vanish  into  empty  air.  »  #  #  On  my  conscience,  J  be- 
lieve him  to  have  been  the  dupe  of  the  designmg,  and  the  prey  of  the 
worthless." 


m 


TRIAL   OF   LORD   STIRLtNG. 


ef 


ernmcnt  were 
ir  own  doubts, 

efforts  of  the 
ering  wilh  his 
;  been  known 
jflicers  of  the 
is  case  refused 
and  cowardly 
ly  denied  that 
lew  thai  Lord 
ernment  have 
3  proceedings, 
rown .     They 

in  tiie  British 
e  expenses  in 
eported  to  be 

I  which  every 
►een  violated, 
id  would  seek 
eems  ex  plica- 
How,  except 
xplained  that 
xpense  to  at- 
e  case  of  the 
harge  of  fab- 
it  the  leading 
Government, 
lient — seeing 
oped  to  avert 
wn,  compro- 
nly  save  his 

of  manfully 
ibly  forlified,^ 
36 :  "Let  the 
3  bewildered 
d  boundless 
:ience,  J  be- 

prey  of  the 


Thus  the  Crown  found  in  the  defender's  counsel  its  strongest  ally,, 
for  certainly  all  the  assaults  of  Ivory  and  Meadowbank  did  not  injure 
Lord  Stirling's  cause  so  much  as  this  weak,  cowardly,  shuffling,  tern- 
porizing  defence. 

In  England,  or  in  any  country  where  there  is  any  popular  strength,, 
a  vigorous  and  manly  opposition  to  the  oppression  of  the  Government, 
in  a  great  fcause  like  this,  would  have  been  the  foundation  of  profes- 
sional success.  But  in  Edinburgh,  where  there  is  no  large  commer- 
cial community  to  keep  in  its  service  the  best  talent  of  the  bar,  all  the 
prizes  of  the  profession  are  the  places  in  the  gift  of  the  Crown.  And 
the  Government  is  sure  of  having  no  more  opposition  than  is  necessary 
on  the  pj^Tt  of  the  opponent  to  prove  that  he  is  worth  buying  off. 

On  the  first  two  days  of  the  trial  the  defence  was  conducted  with 
vigor  and  skill.  The  witnesses  for  the  Crown  were  submitted  to  a  rig- 
orous cross-examination,  and  the  arbitrary  rulings  of  the  court  resisted 
with  becoming  spirit.  But  on  the  third  day  it  was  remarked  on  all 
sides  that  after  the  Crown  counsel,  and  after  them  the  leading  coun- 
sel for  the  defence,  had  been  called  to  the  bench,  and  a  long  and  pri- 
vate communication  had  passed  between  the  latter  and  the  presiding 
judge,  a  deplorable  change  took  place,  and  the  wishes  of  Lord  Stir- 
ling and  his  friends  were  no  longer  regarded.  What  passed  in  that 
interview  cannot  be  told.  But  certain  it  is  that  shortly  afler  the  trial 
Lord  Meadowbank  left  the  bench,  and  the  advocate  who  had  deserted 
his  client's  cause,  and  who,  whether  unwittingly  or  not,  had  so  well 
served  the  Crown's  interest,  and  who  had  said  in  his  speech,  "I  tram- 
ple on  the  tarnished  ermine  with  disdain,"  was  even  without  going 
through  the  ordinary  grades,  pitchforked  to  the  bench. 

It  is  but  just  to  say,  that  Lord  Stirling  has  always  spoken  of  his 
junior  counsel  with  respect  and  regard.  He  might  not  have  been 
wholly  free  from  that  influence  which  pervaded  the  legal  atmosphere 
of  Edinburgh,  and  doubtless  felt  himself  compelled  by  the  imperative 
rules  of  professional  courtesy  to  yield  to  the  leading  counsel. 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  that  modern  Jeffreys,  the  presiding  judge, 
who  acted  throughout  the  trial  as  the  "leading  counsel  of  the  Crown," 
(his  own  words.)  Such  unblushing  prostitution  of  judicial  power  to 
subserve  a  "political  purpose"  cannot  be  instanced  in  modern  times. 
Every  ruling  was  against  the  prisoner.  In  every  question  to  a  witness,, 
and  the  court  took  a  prominent,  and  what  to  us  seems  a  most  unusual 


62 


TRIAL   OF  LORD   STIRLING. 


f 

■-■■(  • 


1  ' 


;=a- 


4-> 


part  in  the  examination,  was  calculated  to  assure  the  reluctant  witness 
for  the  Crown,  and  draw  forth  stronger  evidence  against  the  panel. 
Resolved,  remorseless,  straining  every  fact,  torturing  every  circum- 
stance, he  never  relaxed  from  his  purpose  of  doom.  ' 

We  give  some  random  sentences  from  his  charge: 

<<I  submit  to  you  that  it  would  not  be  safe  to  hold  that  there  could 
be  any  doubt  that  this  is  a  fabricated  document."  "\n  my  opinion,  a 
document  liable  to  such  insurmountable  objections  staring  upon  the 
face  of  it,  cannot  be  genuine."  <'It-  is  really  so  manifest  that  it  does 
not  require  to  be  mentioned;  that  while  these  documents  on  the  back 
of  the  map  bears  the  dates  of  1706  and  1707,  the  map  itself  did  not  ex- 
ist till  1718."  "I  do  not  know  that  in  all  my  life  I  ever  saw  anything 
that  tended  more  conclusively  to  satisfy  my  mind  of  anything  than  this 
fact  satisfies  me  that  this  is  an  entire  fabrication  from  beginning  to 
end."  <<Then  last  of  all  in  regard  to  this  point,  we  have  at  the  end  of 
the  indictment  the  supposed  anonymous  letter  to  Lenormand  which 
must  follow  the  fate  of  the  document  itself.  You  can  have  no  diffi- 
culty or  ground  for  doubting  that  this  letter  is  a  forgery  also."  ''The 
son  returns  with  a  map  which  I  am  assuming  you  are  to  hold  to  be  a 
fabrication."  "And  in  my  mind  there  does  not  exist  a  shadow  of  a 
doubt  of  its  being  a  forged  document."  , 

Throughout  the  whole  charge  there  is  not  a  circumstance,  or  fact, 
or  question,  presented  or  suggested,  to  raise  a  doubt  in  favor  of  the 
prisoner.  He  gleans  every  argument  or  fact  bearing  against  the  pris- 
oner which  had  been  omitted  by  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution.  We 
give  one  instance  of  the  reasoning  against  the  prisoner,  thus  gleaned  up 
and  urged  upon  the  jury,  when  there  was  no  opportunity  of  refuting  it, 
which  well  illustrates  the  shallowness  and  falsity  of  the  reasoning  (for 
there  were  no  proofs)  against  the  documents  on  the  map. 

Mallet,  in  the  note  on  the  map  dated  1706,  speaks  of  the  charter  of 
Novo  dumus  as  "uneancienne  charte,"  and  John  Alexander  speaking 
in  French  of  a  tradition  relative  to  the  loss  of  certain  records  sixty  years- 
before,  calls  it  "I'ancienne  tradition." 

Now,  every  French  scholar  knows  that  the  words  "ancien"  and 
"ancienne"  in  French  are  applied  to  things  not  only  very  ancient, 
but  those  of  comparatively  recent  occurrence.  Thus  we  should  speak 
of  a  retired  minister  as  "un  ancien  ministre" — meaning  one  formerly 
such — "une  ancienne  femme  de  chambre,"  or  a  woman  who  was 
formerly  a  lady's  maid      But  with  Lord  Meadowbank,  the  use  of  t    his 


1.;  ( 
■  ■ 


lictant  witness 
St  the  panel, 
ivery  circum- 


at  there  could 
my  opinion,  a 
ng  upon  the 
ist  that  it  does 
s  on  the  back 
ilf  did  not  ex- 
saw  anything 
liing  than  this 
I  beginning  to 
at  the  end  of 
rmand  which 
have  no  diffi- 
Iso."  <'The 
}  hold  to  be  a 
L  shadow  of  a 

ance,  or  fact, 
favor  of  the 
linst  the  pris- 
cution.  We 
IS  gleaned  up 
)f  refuting  it, 
sasoning  (for 

he  charter  of 
der  speaking 
3s  sixty  years- 

mcien"  and 
^ery  ancient, 
should  speak 
3ne  formerly 
n  who  was 
e  use  of  t    his 


TRIAL   OP  LORD   STIRLING. 


68 


"word  was  a  conclusive  proof  of  the  forgery  of  the  document.  "I  ask 
you,  he  says,  addressing  the  jury,  whether  any  mortal  man  ever  heard 
of  "ancient"  being  applied  to  a  document  of  sixty  years.  Can  you, 
by  any  construction  or  credulity,  believe  that  such  a  thing  could  have 
taken  place?"  Speaking  of  John  Alexander's  use  of  the  "ancienne 
tradition:"  "Who  ever  heard  of  the  ancient  tradition  of  a  thing  that 
•happened  forty  or  fifty  years  ago?" 

Among  other  ingenious  distortions  of  the  presiding  Judge,  is  the 
statement  that  a  note  found  pasted  on  the  map  after  the  tombstone  in- 
scription which  was  pasted  over  it  had  been  removed  in  court,  was  an 
incipient  forgery,  and  had  been  attempted  to  be  torn  off  by  the  forger. 
Now  the  fact  is,  and  it  is  a  fact  which  Lord  Meadowbank  must  have 
known,  that  after  the  note,  with  the  signature  and  date  had  been  rap- 
idly and  indistinctly  read  to  the  court,  Mr.  Cosmo  Tnnes  seized  the 
map,  and  for  reasons  known  only  to  himself,  rapidly  tore  off  the  bot- 
tom of  the  note  with  the  name  and  date,  and  crumpling  the  frag- 
ment in  his  hand,  threw  it  on  the  floor.  This  act  was  witnessed  by 
several  gentlemen  in  attendance,  who,  immediately  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  ihe  court,  rushed  forward  to  search  for  the  fragment,  but  the 
servants  of  the  court  were  too  quick  for  them,  and  had  already  swept 
it  away;  and  yet,  the  Judge  tortures  this  act  of  the  Crown  counsel 
into  a  proof  of  the  criminality  of  the  accused. 

We  have  said  enough  to  show  that  the  court  had  already  convicted 
the  prisoner  before  his  trial.  When  we  reflect  upon  the  condemnation 
which  public  opinion  must  pronounce  upon  this  unjust  judge,  how  re- 
markable are  the  prophetic  words  of  the  "philosophical  poet,  the  illus- 
trious ancestor  of  the  accused,  in  his  "Doomesday" — 

Ye  judges,  ye  who  with  a  little  breath  ■    ' 

Can  ruin  fortunes  and  disgrace  inflict, 
*■     *  Yea,  sit  securely  whilst  denouncing  death,  ■    - 

,.       II  •  *  Ft  shall  be  judged. 

We  know  of  no  instance  in  modern  times  which  illustrates  so  forcibly, 
as  does  this  case,  the  importance  of  the  trial  by  jury  in  political  causes 
to  preserve  the  liberty  or  life  of  the  accused.  The  jury  found  by 
their  verdict  that  Lord  Stirling  was  not  guilty,  or,  according  to  the 
Scotch  form,  it  was  not  proven  that  he  had  forged  any  of  the  docu- 
ments.    It  is  true  that  they  were  led  by  the  instructions  of  the  court 


A*ofe.— Lori  SArling's  poems— Doomesday.     The  1th  Houte.    English  Poets  and  Trans- 
ations,  vol.  v,  p.  368. 


64 


TRIAL   OF   LORD    STIRLING. 


{it  ■ 


to  find  what  they  had  no  right  to  do,  and  what  was  wholly  unusual, 
even  in  Scotland,  that  some  of  the  documents  were  not  genuine. 
Still  the  verdict,  illegal  as  it  was,  was  conclusive  as  to  the  genuineness 
of  the  only  documents  which  they  could  understand,  documents  which 
completely  establish  Lord  Stirling's  pedigree. 

While  speaking  of  the  jury,  we  must  not  omit  to  mention  one  inci- 
dent of  the  trial,  wholly  overlooked  in  the  Crown  report!  After  a  few- 
only  of  Lord  Stirling's  witnesses  had  been  heard,  the  foreman  or 
chancellor  of  the  jury  arose,  and  addressing  the  court  slated,  that  the 
jury  saw  no  necessity  for  going  on  with  the  case,  as  they  had  made  up 
their  minds  to  give  a  verdict  for  Lord  Stirling.  The  presiding  Judge 
was  determined  that  the  panel  should  not  escape.  He  counted  upon 
the  effect  of  his  argument  for  the  Crown,  and  cotnpelled  the  jury,  in 
spite  of  their  expostulations,  to  sit  for  two  days  longer  to  listen  to  his 
own  and  Ivory's  implacable  assaults. 

"When  the  mutilated  verdict  was  announced,  (we  adopt  the  graphic 
description  of  the  Democratic  Review,)  there  was  such  a  stamping 
and  shouting  as  yet  rings  in  the  ears  of  all  who  heard  it,  from 
highest  to  lowest.  It  drowned  the  cries  and  expostulations  of  the 
bench,  towards  which,  indeed,  it  was  so  menacing  that  the  Chief 
Justice  remained  some  time  afterwards  in  the  building,  and  retired 
privately,  while  the  tenant  of  the  dock  was  made  the  object  of  an 
enthusiastic  popular  ovation^  which,  on  recovering  from  a  fainting 
fit,  he  promptly,  but  unwisely,  declined.  The  crowd  received  the 
Earl  of  Stirling  at  the  front  door  of  the  court  with  huzzas  and 
waving  of  hats  and  handkerchiefs;  they  unharnessed  the  horses  from 
his  carriage,  then  before  the  door,  and  proposed  to  draw  him  them- 
selves back  in  triumphal  procession  to  his  residence,  and  to  his  wife 
and  children.  He  resisted  their  importunities  to  the  last;  but  was 
compelled,  for  the  opposite  reason,  to  address  the  crowd  himself  before 
they  would  be  tranquilized,  and  left  in  triumph,  followed  by  hundreds' 
of  people,  by  High  street,  instead  of  leaving  by  the  back  entrance, 
from  Cowgate,  through  which  the  Chief  Justice  himself  ingloriously 
departed.  Conditions  had  rapidly  changed,  ana  retribution  seemed  to 
be  approaching." 

Thus  did  the  accused  pass  unscathed  through  an  ordeal  more  fearful 
than  that  of  fire.  Cruelly  as  he  was  persecuted,  he  w^ill  yet  rejoice  at 
the  results  of  that  atrocious  trial.  For  will  not  our  readers  say,  will 
not  the  world  say,  that  this  trial  is  the  strongest  confirmation  of  his 


TRIAL   OP  LORD   flTIRLINO. 


65 


)lly  unusual, 

[lot  genuine. 

genuineness 

nients  which 

:ion  one  inci- 

After  a  few 

foreman  or 

\led,  that  the 

had  made  up 

isiding  Judge 

counted  upon 

the  jury, in 

a  listen  to  his 

)t  the  graphic 

1  a  stamping 

sard   it,  from 

ations  of  the 

at  the  Chief 

,  and  retired 

object  of  an 

n  a  fainting 

received  the 

huzzas   and 

horses  from 

w  him  them- 

d  to  his  wife 

ast;  but  was 

imself  before 

by  hundreds^' 

ck  entrance, 

ingloriously 

on  seemed  to 


rights?  Would  the  Government  of  a  mighty  empire  have  lent  itself  to 
crush  a  pretender,  whose  fabrications  must  have  been  exposed  at  the 
first  glaicn  of  common  judicial  scrutiny  ?  Would  the  treasure  of  the 
Crown  have  been  lavished  as  it  was;  would  high  officers  of  State  have 
been  created,  base  falsifiers  rewarded,  and  treacherous  advocates 
clothed  with  '<the  tarnished  ermine;"  would  tho  stronghold  of  British 
freedom  have  been  invaded,  and  the  halls  of  justice  violated;  would 
the  honor  of  the  crow,  iiave  been  compromised,  exposure  of  all  the 
outrages  of  this  trin'  risked,  if  an  imperious  tiecessity  had  not  de- 
manded the  saving,  by  a  "  bold  stroke,"  the  vast  territories  to  which 
Lord  Stirling  had  judicially  established  his  right?  When  the  Bri- 
tish Government  allowed  honor  and  law  to  be  violated  to  effect 
their  purpose,  did  they  not  deliberately  proclaim  that  they  had  no 
legal  defence  to  Lord  Stirling's  claims?  Gladly  now  would  they 
keep  this  trial  out  of  sight.  The  English  press,  which  has  just  re- 
sponded with  so  much  anxiety  to  the  assertion  of  Lord  Stirling's  rights 
by  the  American  papers,  carefully  ignore  the  trial  at  Edinburgh,  and 
prefer  even  to  fall  back  upon  (he  deliberate  falsehood  that  Lord  Stir- 
ling's claims  have  been  rejected  by  the  House  of  Lords. 

But  this  trial  will  not  be  forgotten.  It  will. have  its  place  in  history 
with  those  of  Hampden,  Russell,  and  Sydney.  And  Lord  Sdrling, 
not  for  his  rank  or  titles,  not  for  his  vast  claims,  but  as  the  victim  of  po- 
litical oppression,  and  as  presenting  in  himself  a  most  significant  illustra- 
tion of  the  abuses  of  British  power,  will  most  assuredly  receive  the  sup- 
port and  sympathy  of  the  American  press  and  people,  and  the  friends  of 
freedom  throughout  the  world.  Enlightened  by  them.  Public  Opin- 
ion, the  mighty  tribunal  before  which  even  monarchs  must  bow,  will 
reverse  tlie  decisions  of  unjust  courts. 

A  great  wrong  cannot  endure;  "  judges  may  die,  and  courts  be  at 
an  end;  but  justice  still  lives,  and  though  she  may  sleep  for 

AWHILE,  WILL  EVENTUALLY  AWAKE,  AND  MUST  BE   SATISFIED. 

(Paterson,  J.   1  Dallas's  U.  S.  Sup.  Court  Reports,  p.  86.) 


)> 


more  fearful 
yet  rejoice  at 
ers  say,  will 
(lation  of  his 


APPENDIX. 


Translation  of  the  Documents  in  French,  upon  the  back  of  a  map  of 
Canada,  by  Guillaume  De  L^lsle,  Geographer  to  King  Louis 
XIV.     Published  in  1703.  . 


Ivi 


W.    > 


•«». 


Tvd 


17189 

& 
17190 


.rr 


No.  I. 

Note  bt  M.  Ph.  Mallet. 

Ltonb,  Ath  ^t^wtt  1706. 

During  my  stay  in  Acadia,  m  1702,  my  curiosity  was  excited  by  what  was  told  me  re- 
specting an  old  Charter,  which  is  preserved  in  the  Archives  of  that  pro- 
vince. It  is  the  Charter  of  Confirmation,  or  of  "  Novo  damus,"  dated  7th  Reg.  H. 
December,  1639,  by  which  King  Charles  the  First  of  England  renewed,  in  fo.  95.,  E.  D. 
favor  of  William,  Earl  of  Stirling,  the  tiilcs  and  dignities  which  he  had  Mar.  1, 1710. 
previously  granted  to  hirn,  and  all  the  grants  of  land  which  had  been  made 
to  him  since  1621,  in  Scotland  and  in  America.  My  friend  Lacroix  caused  a  copy  of  it 
to  be  given  to  me,  which,  before  leaving  the  country,  I  took  the  precaution  of  getting  duly 
attested.  From  this  authentic  document  I  am  going  to  present,  in  this  place,  a  few  ex- 
tracts, (translated  into  French  for  the  better  understanding  of  those  who  do  not  know 
Latin,)  in  order  that  every  person,  on  opening  this  map  of  our  American  possessions, 
may  form  an  idea  of  the  rast  extent  of  territory  which  was  granted  by  the  King  of  Eng- 
land to  one  of  his  subjects.  If  the  fate  of  war,  or  some  other  event,  should  cause  New 
France  and  Acadia  to  return  under  the  dominion  of  the  English,  the  family  of  Stirling 
would  possess  these  two  provinces]  as  well  as  New  England,  "  and  in  like  manner  the 
whole  of  the  passages  and  bounds,  as  well  upon  the  waters  as  upon  the  land,  from  the 
source  of  the  river  of  Canada,  in  whatsoever  place  it  may  be  found,  to  the  Bay  of  Califor- 
nia, with  fifty  leagues  of  land  on  each  side  of  the  said  passage;  and  further,  all  the  other 
lands,  bounds,  lakes,  rivers,  firths,  woods,  forests  and  others,  which  may  be  hereafter 
found,  conquered,  or  discovered  by  the  said  Earl  or  his  heirs." 

Then  follows  the  order  of  succession  to  this  inheritance. 

lit.  To  the  titles  of  nobility,  ("  de  novo  damus,"  &c.)  "  to  the  aforesaid  William,  Ear, 
of  Stirling,  and  the  heirs-male  descending  of  his  body,  whom  failing,  to  the  eldest  heirs- 
female,"  ("  ha:redibus  femellis  natu  maximis,")  "  without  division  of  the  last  of  the 
aforesaid  heirs-male,  and  the  heirs-male  descending  of  the  body  of  the  said  heirs-female 
respectively,  bearing  the  surname  and  arms  of  Alexander,  and  failing  all  these  heirs,  to 
the  nearest  heirs  whatsoever  of  the  said  William,  Earl  of  Stirling."  (Here  follow  the 
titles,  &c.)  2d.  To  the  territorial  possessions,  ("  de  novo  damus  concedimus,  disponi- 
mus,  proque  nobis  et  successoribus  nostris  pro  perpetuo  confirmamus,)  "  to  the  aforesaid 
William,  Earl  of  Stirling,  and  the  heirs-male  descending  of  his  body,  whom  failing,  to 
the  eldest  of  the  heirs-female,  without  division,  of  the  last  of  the  aforesaid  males,  who 
shall  succeed  hereafter  to  the  aforesaid  titles,  honors,  and  dignities,  and  the  heirs-male  de- 
scending of  the  body  of  the  aforesaid  heirs-female  respectively  bearing  the  surname  and 


Lh 


APPENDIX. 


67 


kof  a  map  of 
King  Louis 


Reg.  H. 
fo.  95.,  E.  D. 
Mar.  1, 1710. 


1Y189 

& 
17190 

h  August,  1706. 
Eit  was  told  me  re- 

0- 

th 
in 
id 
de 

auRed  a  copy  of  it 

ion  of  getting  duly 

s  place,  a  few  ex- 

who  do  not  know 

■lean  possessions, 

the  King  of  Eng> 

hould  cause  New 

family  of  Stirling 

like  manner  the 

the  land,  from  the 

le  Bay  ofCalifor- 

ther,  all  the  other 

may  be  hereafter 


aid  William,  Ear, 
the  eldest  heirs- 
f  the  last  of  the 
said  heirs-female 
all  these  heirs,  to 
(Here  follow  the 
cedimus,  disponi- 
"  to  the  aforesaid 
whom  failing,  to 
esaid  males,  who 
he  heirs-male  de- 
the  surname  and 


arms  of  the  family  of  Alexander,  which  they  shall  be  held  and  obliged  to  assume,"  &c. 
Thus  the  King  of  England  gave  to  the  Earl,  and  confirmed  to  his  descendants  in  perpetu- 
ity, lands  sufficient  to  form  the  foundation  of  a  powerful  empire  in  America. 

(Signed)  Ph.  Mallet. 

On  the  right  hand  upper  corner  of  the  above  document,  is  a  memorandum  by  King 
Louis  XV,  of  France,  in  the  following  terms: 

"  This  note  is  worthy  of  some  attention  under  the  present  circumstances;  but  let  the 
copy  of  the  original  Charter  be  sent  to  me." 

Underneath  this  is  the  following  attestation  by  M.Villenave:*  ' 

"  I  attest  that  the  four  lines  above  are  in  the  handwriting  of  Louis  XV,  and  perfectly 
conformable  to  the  writing  of  that  King,  several  of  whose  autograph  documents  and  let- 
ters are  in  my  possession. 

(Signed)  "VILLENAVE." 

«  Paris,  th\a  2d  qfJlugtut,  1837." 


•  No.  II. 

Note  bt  M.  Carom  St.  Etig-vne,  a  Canadian,  unoerkbath  the  Note  bt  M.  Mallet. 

"  The  above  is  a  valuable  note.  I  can  affirm  that  it  gives,  in  a  few  words,  an  extremely 
just  idea  of  the  wonderful  Charter  which  is  referred  to.  As  for  the  copy  of  this  Charter, 
it  is  attested  by  the  Keeper  of  the  Archives  and  Acadian  witnesses;  and  must  be  entirely 
conformable  to  the  Register  of  Port  Royal.  I  had  heard  at  duebec  persons  speak  of  the 
grants  to  the  Earl  of  Stirling,  but  my  friend,  M.  Mallet,  was  the  first  who  procured  for 
me  a  perusal  of  the  Charter.  This  extraordinary  document  extends  to  nearly  fifty  pages 
of  writing,  and  the  Latin  is  nothing  less  than  classical;  yet,  being  a  Canadian,  and,  as 
such,  a  little  interested  in  what  is  contained  in  it,  I  feel  bound  to  say,  that  I  iiave  read  it 
from  beginning  to  snd  with  as  much  curiosity  as  satisfaction.  The  deceased,  iM .  Mallet, 
was  a  man  whose  good  qualities  and  rare  intelligence  make  it  to  be  regretted  that  death 
should  have  so  suddenly  carried  him  off  from  his  friends. 

"  He  had  well  foreseen  that  the  copy  would  not  make  the  Charter  known  in  France. 
On  this  account,  therefore,  he  formed  the  project  of  writing  upon  one  of  these  beautiful 
maps  of  GuillaumQ  De  L'IsIe  a  note,  that  every  body  might  read  with  interest.  If  he 
had  lived  long  enough  he  'vould  have  added  to  that  interest,  for  he  wished  to  make  inqui- 
ries in  England  regarding  the  actual  situation  of  the  descendants  of  the  Eurl  who  obtain- 
ed the  grants,  and  all  that  might  have  been  communicateJ  to  him  respecting  them  would 
have  been  written  upon  this  same  map.  However,  with  the  two  documents  that  he  has 
left  us,  no  person  in  France  can  venture  a  doubt  as  to  the  existence  of  such  a  charter. 
(Signed)  "  CARON  SAINT  ESTIENNE. 

"LiosB,  6th  April,  im." 


*  Member  of  the  Inslituteof  France,  and  one  of  the  greatest  collectors  of  original  wriUogs 
in  that  kingdom. 


68 


l?;.:'v 


I'  V      nt 


t,--« 


'.I 


APPENDIX. 
No.  III. 


Attestation  bt  Esprit  Flechier,  Bishop  of  Nismei.  , 

"  I  have  lately  read,  in  the  house  of  M.  Sartre,  at  Caveirac,  the  copy  of  the  Charter  of 
the  Earl  of  Stirling.  I  remarked  in  it  many  curious  particulars,  mixed  up  with  a  great 
nutnber  of  uninteresting  details.  I  therefore  think  that  we  ought  to  feel  the  ^'reatest  obli- 
gation to  M.  Mallet  for  having  enabled  the  French  public  to  judge,  by  the  above  note,  of 
the  extent  and  importance  of  the  grants  made  to  this  Scotch  nobleman.  I  find  also  that 
he  has  extracted  the  most  psseniial  clauses  of  the  Charter;  and,  in  translating  them  into 
French,  has  given  a  very  correct  version  of  them.  M.  Caron  St.  Esticnne  has  requested 
tne  to  bear  testimony  to  this.     I  do  so  with  the  greatest  pleasure. 

*    (Signed)  "  ESPRIT,  Bishop  of  Nismes. 

«'  M  Wishes,  this  3d  of  June,  1707." 

Verified  by  M.  Villenave,  as  follows: 

"This  attestation  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Esprit  Flechier,  Bishop  of  Nismes. 

(Signed)  "VILLENAVE. 

• '  Paris,  2d  Jli^usl,  1837. "  , 

The  authenticity  of  M.  Vil1enave*s  signature  is  shown  by  the  attestations  of  the  public 
authorities,  viz: 

*'Seen  by  us,  Mayor  of  the  11th  Arrondissement  of  Paris,  for  the  legalization  of  the 

signature  of  M.  Villenave,  (the  father,)  afiixed  to  the  above,  and  again  at  the  top  of  this 

m6rgin. 

Snitlofthe 
Mayor. 

"  Paris,  2d  August,  1837." 


(Signed)       "  DESGRANGES. 


"  Seen,  for  legalization  of  the  signature  of  M.  Desgranges,  placed  adjoining  to  this,  by 
UB,  Judge,  in  the  absence  of  the  President  of  the  Tribunal  of  First  Instance  of  the  Seine. 

Behlofihe  Tribunal  of  First  (Signed)        "SALMON. 

Jiistance  of  the  Oep.  of  .  ;^ 
ihe  Sfcine. 

••  Paris,  3d  .August,  1837." 

"Seen,  for  legalization  of  the  signature  of  M.  Salmon,  Judge  of  the  Civil  Tribunal  of 
the  Seine. 
"Paris,  2d  October,  1837." 


"By  delegation,  the  Chief  of  the  Office  of  the  Minister  of  Justice. 

steal  of  the  (Signed) 

KcepHf  nf  the  Seals 
of  France. 


"PORET." 


"The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  certifies  to  the  truth  of  the  annexed  signature  of  M. 

Porct;»  ••     ^ 

"Paris,  2d  October.  1837." 

"By  authority  of  the  Minister,  the  Chief  of  the  Office  of  Chancery. 

Pefil  oftlic  '  Gratis.  (Signed)  "DE  LAMARRE." 

Minister  of  Fdrt'ign 
AtlUirs. 

"Seen,  for  legalization  of  the  annexed  signulurc  of  M.  Do  Lamnrrc,  Chief  of  the 
Office  of  Chancery  in  the  Department  of  Forign  Afluirs." 


APPENDIX. 


69 


of  the  Charter  of 
:(I  ttp  with  a  great 
il  the  ^'reatest  obli- 
the  above  note,  of 
I.  I  find  also  that 
nslating  them  into 
:nne  has  requested 

shop  of  Nismes. 


Nismes. 
VILLENAVE. 

tions  of  the  public 

legalization  of  the 
1  at  the  top  of  this 

ESGRANGES. 


[joining  to  this,  by 
ice  ot  the  Seine. 
"SALMON. 


Civil  Tribunal  of 

"PORET.'I 

d  signature  of  M. 

October.  1837." 
LAIMARRE." 


rrc,  Chief  of  the 


"The  Consul  of  her  Britannic  ^J'•i'1sty  at  Paris. 

8ealofHer  (Signed) 

Rritnnnic  Majesty's  ^     °       ' 

ConBUl  at  Paris. 


"Paris,  4(A  OtMttt^  1837. 


"THOMAS  PICKPORD." 


No.  IV.  '  .  i; 

Autograph  Letter*,  Mr.  John  Alexander,  (grandson  of  the  rniebrated  Earl  of  Stir* 
ling,)  to  the  Marchioness  de  Lambert. 

PenI  of  the  Keeper 
General  of  the  nrchivea  of  the  .,_         .  .     „,  .     «  ._.._ 

Kinedoin.  "J^om  ANTRIM,  the  25(A  Augvai^  1707. 

"It  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  express.  Madam,  how  very  sensible  I  am  of  the 
honor  of  your  remembrance.  I  must  also  sincerely  thank  M.  de  Cambray.t  since  it  was 
he  who  facilitated  the  journey  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Hovenden,  and  by  that  means  was  the 
cause  of  your  letter,  and  the  copy  you  have  had  the  kindness  to  send  to  me  of  the  note 
respectins  the  charter  of  my  grandfather,  being  so  quickly  put  into  my  hands.  I  will  an- 
swer in  the  best  way  I  can  the  questions  you  put  to  me. 

"I  am  not,  as  you  thought,  heir  to  the  titles  of  my  family.  Our  chief  at  present  is 
Henry,  5th  Earl  of  Stirling,  descended  of  the  third  son  of  my  grandfather.  He  lives 
seme  miles  from  London,  has  no  children;  but  he  has  brothers,  the  eldest  of  whom  is  his 
presumptive  hei;.  Of  the  first  son  there  remain  only  the  descendants  of  his  daughters. 
The  second  left  no  children.  My  father  was  the  fourth  son.  He  married,  to  his  first 
wife,  an  heiress  of  the  house  of  Gartmore,  in  Scotland.  My  mother,  of  the  family  of 
Maxwell,  was  his  second  wife;  but  although  he  had  daughters  by  the  first,  he  never  had 
anyother  son  but  myself.  In  order  to  finish  this  family  genealogy,  I  must  tell  you, 
Madam,  that  my  wife  is  a  cadet  of  that  of  Hamilton,  a  ducal  house  in  Scotland,  and  that 
she  has  given  me  a  son,  named  John, after  my  father  and  myself,  and  two  daughters.  I 
have 60  little  idea  at  present  that  the  titles  and  istates  of  Stirling  can  fall  to  my  children, 
that  I  have  encouraged  my  son's  inclination  for  the  ministry  of  our  church  of  Scotland, 
and  he  is  preparing  himself  for  it  in  Holland,  at  the  University  of  Leyden. 

"I  shall  carefully  preserve  the  interesting  note  of  M.  Mallet.  The  charter  was  regis* 
tered  at  one  period  in  Scotland,  as  well  as  in  Acadia;  but  pendiiig  the  Civil  War  and  the 
usurpation  of  Cromwell,  some  chests  containing  a  part  of  the  records  of  this  kingdom 
were  lost  at  sea  during  a  storm;  and,  according  to  the  ancient  tradition  of  our  family,  the 
register  in  which  this  charter  had  been  inscribed  was  of  the  number  of  those  that  were  lost. 

"This,  Madam,  is  all  that  I  am  able  to  say  in  answer  to  your  questions,  for  it  is  impos- 
sible in  this  country  of  Ireland  to  obtain  any  other  information  respecting  the  registered 
charter.  _  I  believe  my  grandmother  had  given  tht  miginal  charter,  (which  she  brought 
from  Scotland,  on  coming  to  settle  in  Ireland,)  to  her  son-in-law,  Lord  Montgomerie,  in 
order  that  he  might  keep  it  with  care  in  Castle  Comber,  where  he  lived.  I  will  inquire  what 
this  family  may  have  done  with  it;  and  if  I  moke  emy  discovery,  I  shall  have  the  honor 
to  inform  you. 


*  These  lines  are  written  upon  a  stripe  of  paper  pasted  on  the  map  above  the  tetter, 
which  is  also  pasted  upon  the  map. 
t  The  Archbishop  of  Cumbray. 


to 


APPENDIX. 


"Never  shall  I  forget,  Madam,  your  kindneas  to  me,  nor  the  charma  of  the  society  I 
always  found  at  your  house.  So  long  as  I  live  I  shall  be  attached  to  you  with  the  most 
respectful  devotedness. 

(Signed)  "JOHN  ALEXANDER." 

Partly  upon  the  margin,  and  partly  below  the  signature  of  this  letter,  is  the  following  note 
by  Fenelon,  Archbishop  of  Cambray: 

"The  friends  of  the  deceased,  M.  Ph.  Mallet,  will  read,  no  doubt  with  much  interest, 
this  letter  from  a  grandson  of  the  Earl  of  Stirling.  M.  Cholet,  of  Lyons,  setting  off  this 
day,  16th  October,  1707,  to  return  home,  will  have  the  honor  to  deliver  it  to  M.  Brossette,* 
by  the  desire  of  Madame  de  Lambert. 

"In  order  to  authenticate  it,  I  have  written  and  signed  this  marginal  note. 

(Signed)  "FR.  AR.  DUKE  OP  CAMBRAY." 

"Seen  by  us,  keeper  general  of  the  archives  of  the  kingdom,  for  the  verification  of  the 
signature,  JV.  Ar.  Duke  qf  Camhray,  and  of  the  writing  of  the  six,  iines  which  precede  it, 
which  lines  are  placed,  namely,  the  three  first  upon  the  margin,  and  the  three  last  at  the 
bottom  of  a  letter  signed  John  Alexander,  dated  25th  August,  1707. 

'*We  have  recognised  the  writing  of  the  six  lines,  and  the  signature  which  follows  them, 
as  boing  conformable  to  the  writing  and  to  the  signature  of  a  letter  of  Fenelon,  Archbishop 
of  Cambray,  dated  2lBt  December,  1703,  and  deposited  in  the  historical  section  of  the  ar- 
chives of  the  kingdom,  series  M,  No.  928. 

"In  faith  of  which,  we  have  signed,  and  caused  the  seal  of  the  said  archives  to  be 
affixed,  on  the  one  part,  upon  the  document  which  contains  the  writing  of  Fenelon,  and, 
on  the  other,  upon  the  back  of  the  map  of  Canada,  upon  which  this  document  is  pasted. 

Paris,  27th  July,  1837. 

Seal  of  the  Keeper  (Siened)  "DAUNOU." 

General  of  the  Archives  of  the  \    o       / 

Kingdom. 

*'Seen  by  us.  Mayor  of  the  7th  Arrondisscment,  for  the  legalization  of  the  signature  of 
M.  Daunou,  (afiixed  above,)  keeper  general  uf  the  archives  of  the  kingdom. 
"Paris,  ith  At^wt,  1837. 


Seal  of 

the  Mayor  of  the  7th 

Arrond. 


(Signed) 


"LECOCl." 


"Seen,  for  the  Lgalization  of  the  signature  of  M.  Lecoq,  Mayor  adjunct  of  the  7th 
Arrondissement,  by  us  Judge,  in  the  absence  of  the  Tresident  of  the  Tribunal  of  First  In- 
stance of  the  Seine. 

"Paris,  4th  August,  1837. 

Seal  of  the  Tribunal  (Signed)  "H.  DE  ST  ALBIN." 

of  Firat  Instance  of  the  Dep. 
of  the  Seine. 

"Seen,  for  the  legalization  of  the  signature  of  M.  do  St.  Albin,  Judge  of  the  Civil  Tri- 
bunal of  the  Seine. 
Paris,  id  October,  1837. 

"By  delegation,  the  Chief  of  the  Office  of  the  Minister  of  Justice. 

Seal  of  the  (Signed)  "PORET." 

Keeper  of  the  Seals 
of  France. 


A  counuullor  at  Lyons,  and  a  man  of  learning. 


"The  ^ 

Poret. 

"Paris 

"By  au 

Seal  of 

Minuter  of 

Affaii 

•'Seen, 

Office  of  ( 

"Paris 

"The  ( 

Seal  of 
Britannic  1 
Consul  al 


of  the  society  I 
iTou  with  the  most 

.EXANDER.'* 
he  following  note 

th  much  interest, 
8,  setting  off  this 
to  M.  Brossette,* 

te. 

CAM  BRAY." 

erification  of  the 
which  precede  it, 
B  three  last  at  the 

lich  follows  them, 
elon,  Archbishop 
ection  of  the  ar* 

I  archives  to  be 
of  Fenelon,  and, 
iment  is  pasted. 

"DAUNOU." 


the  signature  of 
om. 

"LECOd." 

unct  of  the  7lh 
unal  of  First  In- 


APPENDIX. 


71 


"The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  certifies  to  the  truth  of  the  annexed  signature  of  M. 
Poret. 
"Paris,  2({  October,  1837.  <  ,  , 

i 

"By  authority  of  the  Minister,  the  Chief  of  the  Office  of  Chancery. 

Seal  of  the  GraUs.  (Signed)  "DE  LAMARRE." 

Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs. 

*'Senn,  for  the  legalization  of  the  annexed  signature  of  M.  de  Lamarre,  Chief  cf  the 
Office  of  Chancery  in  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs. 
"Paris,  4th  October,  1837.  \  > 

"The  Consul  of  her  Britannic  Majesty  at  Paris. 


Seal  of  Her 

Britannic  Majesty's 

Coniul  at  Paris. 


(Signed)  "THOMAS  PICKFORD." 


"Seal  of 
and  part  of 


No.  V. 

Arms  of  J.  Alexander, 
of  Antrim. 


Mr.  John  Alexander, 
the  envelope  of  his  letter." 


3T  ALBIN." 


f  the  Civil  Tri- 


•PORET.' 


m 

T2 

5|v. 

ii ; 

f  ■■■.  ■  ■  ■ 

",' ,. 

^^ 


APPENDIX. 
No.  VI. 


"I  Ilia  copy 
IiiHcriplion, 
Hiid  Mt.  Gor- 
don's certifl- 
cntu  Buhjoin- 
ed,  arc  iiaKlud 
on  the  Map. 


Inscription  to  the  Mbmort  or  Mr.  John  Alexander,  or  Antrim 

(In  English  ) 

Hero  lieth  the  Body  of 

John  Alexander,  EsauiRE, 

Late  of  Antrim, 

The  only  Son  of  the  Honorable  lohn  Alexander, 

Who  was  the  fourth  Son  of  that  IVlost  Iliuatrioua 

And  famous  Statesman, 

'  William,  Earl  of  Starline, 

Principal  Secretary  for  Scotland, 

Who  had  the  singular  merit  of  planting  at  his 

Sole  expense,  the  first  Colonic  in 
\  Nova  Scotia. 

He  married  Mary,  Eldest  Daughter  of  the 

Rev.  Mr.  Hamilton,  of  Cangor, 

By  whom  he  had  issue  one  son,  lohn,  who, 

At  this  present  time,  is  the  Presbyterian  Minister 

At  Stratford-on-Avon,  in  England, 

And  two  Daughters, 

Mary,  who  survives,  and  Elizabeth,  Wife  of 

lohn  M.  Skinner,  Esquire,  who  died  7th  Jan.,  1710- '11, 

Leaving  three  Children. 

He  was  a  man  of  such  endowments  as  added 

Lustre  to  his  noble  descent,  and  was  univcrsaiiy 

Respected  for  his  Piety  and  Benevolence. 

He  was  the  best  of  Husbands : 

As  a  Father,  most  Indulgent :  As  a  Friend, 

Warm,  Sincere,  and  Faithful]. 

He  departed  this  Life 

At  Templepatrick,  in  the  County  of  Antrim, 

On  the  19th  day  of  April,  1712. 

This  is  a  faithfbll  copy  of  the  Inscription  to  the  memory  of  John  Alexander,  Esquire, 

'upon  the  tablet  over  his  tomb  at  Newtoun-Ardes,  county  of  Down,  Ireland. 

W.  C.  GORDON,  Jun. 
Stratvoro-ofon-Avom,  Oct.  6, 1723. 


No.  VII 

Note  underneath  No.  VI.* 

"  This  inscription  was  communicated  by  Madame  de  Lambert.  Since  the  death  of  Mr. 
Alexander,  in  1712,  this  lady  has  not  ceased  to  give  marks  of  her  kindness  and  friend- 
ship to  the  son  of  that  distinguished  man.  The  son  is  advantageously  known  in  England 
as  a  minister  of  the  Protestant  worship,  and  as  a  learned  philologist.  In  the  knowledge 
of  the  Oriental  languages  he  is  almost  without  competitors.  He  is  at  the  head  of  the  Col- 
lege  for  the  Education  of  Young  Ministers,  established  at  Stratford,  in  the  county  of 
Warwick." 

*  Drawn  up  and  written,  it  is  supposed,  by  M.  Brossette. 


NTRIM. 


"•  his  copy 
IiiHcription, 
iiiid  Mil.  Gor- 
<|nn'g  cerlifl- 
catu  8ul)jnin- 
ed,  arc  imRttMl 
on  tho  'Mup. 


Kander,  Esquire, 

id. 

DRDON,  Jun. 


the  death  of  Mr. 
ne&s  and  friend- 
own  in  England 
1  the  knowledge 
head  of  the  Col- 
the  county  of 


i  APPENDIX.     , 


DOCUMENTS 


73 


Authenticated  by  the  aged  Solicitor  of  the  family  and  other  gentlemen, 
and  found  by  the  Jury  to  be  genuine. 


No.  I. 
Anonymous  Note  to  the  Defenrler-. 

The  enclosed  was  in  a  small  cash-box,  which  was  stolen  from  the  lete  William  Hum- 
phreys, Esq.  at  the  time  of  his  removal  from  Digbeth-houso,  Birmingham,  to  Fair  Plill. 
The  person  who  committed  the  thefl  was  a  young  man  in  a  situat' on  in  trade  wliich 
placed  him  above  suspicion.  Fear  of  detection,  and  other  circumstances,  caused  the  box 
to  be  carefully  put  away,  and  it  was  forgot  that  the  packet  of  j^apers  was  lefl  in  it. 
This  discovery  has  been  made  since  the  death  of  tiie  person  alluded  'o,  which  took  place 
last  month.  His  family  being  now  certain  that  the  son  of  Mr.  Humphreys  is  the  Lord 
Stirling  who  has  lately  published  a  narrative  of  his  case,  they  have  requested  a  lady, 
going  to  London,  to  leave  the  packet  at  his  Lordship's  publishers,  a  channel  for  its  con- 
veyance pointed  out  by  the  book  itself,  and  which  they  hope  is  quite  safe.  His  Lordship 
will  perceive  that  the  seals  have  never  been  broken.  The  family  of  the  deceased,  for 
obvious  reasons,  must  remain  unknown.  They  make  this  reparation,  but  cannot  ho 
expected  to  court  disgrace  and  infamy, 
jjprii  17, 1837. 

This  note  was  opened  in  my  presence,  and  found  to  contain  the  packet  superscribed, 

'Some  of  my  Wife's 
'Family  Papers,' 
sealed  with  three  black  seals  bearing  the  same  impression. 
Lo^nAon,  22rf  Jl^rH,  1837.  Wm.  Scorer,  Public  Notary. 

Witness,  Enw.  Francis  Feknell,  Solicitor,  32,  Bedford  Row,  Londgn, 


10 


74 


i^PPENDIX. 


No.  II. — Reduced  Emblazoned  Pedigree  of  the  Earls  of  Stirling 


U  ■'•• 


No.  35. 


ii 


Part 
of  the  Genealogical  Tree 

of  the 

Alexanders  of  Menstry, 

Earls  of  Stirling  in  Scotland, 

shew-ng 
only  the  fourth  and  now  existing 

Branch. 

Reduced  to  pocket  size  from  the 

largo  emblazoned  Tree  in  the 

posaession  of  Mrs.  Alexander, 

of  King  Street,  Birm. 

By  ine, 

Tho«  Campbell. 

^pril  15,  1759. 


John, 

Eldest  Son,  Bom, 

at  Dublin,  in  1736, 

heir 

to  the 

Titles  &  Estates. 

I 


Benjamin, 

2nd  Son, 

Born  at  Dublin 

in  1737. 


Mart, 

Eldest  Daiir, 

Born  at  Dublin, 

in  1733. 


I 


Hannah, 

2nd  Daur, 

Born  at  Dublin, 

in  1741. 


John, 
6th  Earl  of  Stirling, 

(De  Jure,) 

M''  Hannah  Higgs, 

of  Old  Swinford. 

Died  at  Dublin, 

Nov.  1,  1743, 

Aged  57. 

Bur*  there. 


Mart, 

Eldest  Daur. 

Born  in  1683, 

Died 

unmar'd. 


Elizabeth, 

Born  1685, 

M'>  J.  M.  Skinner 

Died  1711, 

leaving 

issue. 


r 


John, 

Marry 'd 
Mary  Hamilton 

of  Bangor, 

Settled  at  Antrim 

after  living  many  years 

in  Germany. 

Died  1712. 

Bur*  at  Newtown. 

I 


jANETr 

only 

Surviving  Child 

of  the 

heiress  of 

Gartmore. 


John, 

4th  Son— Marry 'd 

1.  Agnes  Graham, 

heiress  of  Gartmore. 

2.  Elizabeth  Maxwell, 

of  Londonderry. 

Settled  in  Ireland 

in  1646. 

Died  1665. 


William, 
1st  Earl  of  Stirling, 

B.  1580. 

M.  Janet  Erskine. 

Plad  issue, 

7  Sons  and  3  Daiin. 

Died  1640. 

Burd  at 

Stirling. 


APPENDIX. 


75 


of  Stirling 


blin, 


BETII, 

1685, 

Skinner 

1711, 

ing 

le. 


Janet, 

only 

3urvivinff  Child 

of  tne 

heiress  of 

Garkmore. 


No.  III. 
Letter,  Dr,  Benjamin  Alexander  to  Rev.  John  Alexander  of 

Birmingham. 

Rev*  Mr  Alexander,  Birmingham. 

Uear  Bro', 

Mr  Palmer  is  not  at  homo,  but  I  will  take  care  of  the  letter.  I  have 
but  little  time  to  write  at  present,  yet,  as  Mr  Solly  is  going  to-night,  and  offers  to  take 
this,  I  must  tell  you,  Campbell  has  written  to  me.  The  report  we  neard  last  year  about 
the  agents  of  W.  A.  is  too  true.  No  other  copy  of  the  inscription  can  be  had  at  New- 
town. The  country  people  say,  they  managed  one  nie:ht  to  get  the  slab  down,  and  'tis 
thought  they  bury  d  it.  However,  C.  does  not  think  you  need  mind  this  loss,  aa  Mr 
Littleton's  copy  can  be  proved.  Mr  Denison  tells  Campbell,  hi^  copy  of  grandfather 
A.'s  portrait  will  be  very  like  when  finished.  At  the  back  of  the  original,  old  Mr 
Denison  pasted  a  curious  mem.,  from  which  it  appears,  that  our  grandfather  rec' hii 
early  education  at  Londonderry,  under  'tiie  watchful  eye  of  Mr  Maxwell,  his  maternal 
grandsire.'  At  the  age  of  sixteen,  the  Dowager-Countess  wished  him  to  be  sent  to 
Glasgow  College;  but  at  last  it  was  th<  jght  better  for  him  to  go  to  a  German  university. 
He  attained  high  distinction  as  a  scholar,  remained  many  years  abroad,  and  visited  foreign 
courts.  Please  to  give  duty  and  love  to  Mamma,  love  to  sisters,  and  be  yourself  healthy 
and  content. 

Yr  affectionate  Bro', 

iMxd.  ,iugt  20,  1765.  B.  Alexander. 

No.  IV. 
A  Letter,  A.  E.  Baillie  to  Rev.  John  Alexander  of  Birmingham. 

For  Rev.  Mr  Jn"  Alexander. 

Duhlin,  Sept.  16,  1765. 
I  was  sorry  to  hear  of  y«  lawless  act  at  Newton,  but  as  I  tell  Mr  Deni- 
son, I  shall  be  ready  to  come  forward  if  you  want  me.  I  was  about  twenty-one  when  I 
attended  y  cfrandfUther's  funerall.  He  was  taken  ill  while  visitting  a  friend  at  Temple- 
patrick,  and  dyed  y",  for  he  cou'd  not  be  removed.  Mr  Livingstone,  a  verry  old  friend 
of y  family,  wrote  y  inscription,  w"*  y«  claimant  from  America  got  destroyed.  I  always 
heard  y'  y  great  gr.  father,  y"  Hono''"  Mr.  Alexander,  (who  was  known  in  the  country 
as  Mr.  Alexander  of  Gartmoir),  dyed  at  Derry:  but  for  y*  destruction  of  y«  parish  regis- 
ters in  the  north  by  y«  Papists,  during  y«  civil  war  from  1689  to  1692,  you  mit  have  got 
y«  certificates  you  want. 

I  am  vf^^  Friend  Denison  till  October;  so  if  you  have  more  questions  to  put  to  me, 
please  to  direct  to  his  care.    Till  then, 

I  remain.  Rev*  Sir,  Y"  respectfully, 

A.  E.  Baillie. 


,»     Rev.  Sir, 


No.  V. 
Letter,  Dr  Benjamin  Alexander  to  Mrs  Alexander,  King  Street, 

Birmingham. 

To  Mrs.  Alexander,  King  Street,  Birmingham. 

Hon*  and  D'  Mamma, 

Received  y  letter  yesterday  by  Mr  Kettle.    I  write  instantly  to  prevent 
more  mischief.     Take  no  physic  any  body — foolish  practice  to  weaken  constitutions  for  a 
foolish  rash — let  it  go  off  as  it  will — don't  you  see  how  it  has  hurt  Mary?    Let  sister 
Hannah  take  antimonial  wine,  thirty  or  forty  drops  twice  a-day.     This  will  carry  off  the 
rash  by  perspiration,  and  safely.     I  send  you  the  portrait  of  gr.  father  Alexander,  which 
Campbell  did  for  Bro''.     Sisters  never  saw  it.    C.  says  we  can't  recover  Gartmo 
The  other  Scotcii  property  went  to 
half  sister  to  my  gf'father,  but  w 
succeed  in  Ireland  if  we  begin  soon 

It  will  be  now  necessary  to  pay  Campbell's  bill.    It  comes  to  two  and  twenty  pounds 
thirteen  shill'.     Let  me  know  in  yo"'  next  how  you  propose  furnishing  the  money. 

1  am,  in  great  haste,  and  with 
love  to  sisters,  y  dutif.  and 

affec  Son 
Lond.,  Jtt/t/ 26  1766.  B.Alexander. 


; 


/'^■•^'' 


P'\ : 

f  V    ■ 


76 


APPENDIX. 


No.  VI. 
Note  on  Back  of  Copy  Portrait  of  Mr.  John  Alexander  of  Antrim 


JOHN  ALEXANDER,  E«q. 

of  Antrim. 

Died  April  19, 1712. 

From  the  Original  Painting. 

Done  at  Versailles  in  his  foitieth 

year:  now  in  the  possession  of 

P.  Denison,  Esq,  of  Dublin. 

Thos.  Campbell,  Pinx. 


Note.  (On  the  back.) 

Mr  Denison  believes  myg'  gr.  father  lost  his  first  wife,  Agnes,  in  1637, 
and  that  he  met  Miss  Maxwell  at  Comber,  and  was  marr*  to  her  in  1639.  If  so,  and  my 
gr.  father  the  next  year  made  hii  appearance  in  this  world,  we  may  suppose  the  original 
portrait  was  painted  in  1679.  B.  A, 


r. 


\i 


of  Antrim. 


fnes,  in  1637', 
f  so,  and  my 
io  the  original 
B.1 


I 


f 


% 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


^  1^    12.2 


||L25  |||J4     14 

< ^ 

6"     

► 

VI 


v: 


4V 


7 


-^ 


Hiotographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14S30 

(716)  872-4503 


0 


^ 


C\ 


\ 


%. 

'.^ 


6^ 


'^■''^'''^^^^ncA-^o/f»^,^ 


1 


U€«<«' 


N^  .— — — ■ ' 


,y<  -^ 


i 


^4 


>^t-<ry-. 


-.   /^A^tc-^     ei»_.    Ve^u^'i 


r,^  W.   ^J i:t^.L-:t<3v.i   </<k./o. 


flAa 


^ 


z' 


Td. 


7^  «^  T«^ .  '^c^jhz^  ^  <»iW 

^*       ^"-     '         '"^  ■■■■■■  ——^^Mi^^i^M^^^^— ■■■■!■■       ■!,  ■— —     ■— — ^— ^^W^— — ^i^— ^^.^_^_^_^  _ 


e<-'K  i^t<  -  Vo^    K/tJc.  fo4. 


n  e^  -/f**^ 


I 


■/'■ 


'■)  %e.C^ <:^,v< ,^  ^/etan  t'fr'o^  .Ccv,7x.a^     -/» r>^^ y 


\' 


^\ 


./v»y^  f  j(: 


-4v 


ft  l-M-iT     XavY     ClA/CC  Ot    'pV  ^-^^i 


;r 


iCw   ^ut.et<^u-«^  ^C 


»v«;'f/,(_- 


< 


Cut^i  H-e    Ot  Jii.i^  K'vtij     ^trVj 


Ccn^CtAfc^    ^tt.  c)i/  ^  I 


«\VH(< 


«^ 


hg,  '^••f  t*^^*»«^  ?H^Wj  9»^^<U/ft4 


yjiix^^  /^'ly  e.j<^x^/^  '^  J^  2^^^/^<m^ 


p^ixl    i^W   .   €^<:X^i'ey   ^< 


«_-^ 


vy,'>r  «.-*  ^^'t-/'-'    ^y'^•,  '^"r^att^c/t^iAnftti^ 


/. 


j/^^a^lx   Ki,*'^^      .y«/0V4x   fta<i^^^^«-^"C*J  t^     fc*^      t^i^^     w-.vtfc    CiA^i^t^. 


./Vw^  f  .;^ 


4/-     f> 


■'4y 


Icy   i^Vucal^M-w  eiCTvai'V^  ,\^+-vpti)uli^  «>wfvHt/K.c<>li    j/ir^-i^    ('twTe-L 


4 


c.^  two-  co^cecit  y^Z-^v-  Pe.  /w    y'Cu4^U#< 


ti  iC^-v^eJ    i-cJiJl  y^^  te^  e<M4/t, 


Xc^i^^^vJU  fiw2 


; 


l/irxt"  'V'* 


voM/vt-e-v^ 


CoTvCcxe^    Ov^^O-^lvJiHi-wi/Wtt     CcrMO/te^A-  /ft'vit'Hw'-    /jfyVj^tXu 


Jl-', 


v.  71.  t'./      ^a  ft-p^  y 


T   S. 


.l^«*  «f  et-nji  i^C^ 


i    J\4a.lL-,       «v. 


tv  1 6/  ^ve- ,  77  1  LTVv Ccvny 

4  J-u^^' 


■fct.lv  ft-  o 


>i/t^wC-*»' 


^e^ 


9e  .  ceia, 


coll  ^ux^  (''^^e.FRcv,;r;^c?K2  i^y^^^^f^      u^^tUS^  ajivi^yt^t^iJit  j§^^ 


-S^ 


1     ^Uc'S^UXnU     f 


L  Cji 


COA/W. 


c)lJ-  /^uJ^cc^    -    ^   ie-^lM   %inJrt.i  Lti  c^wfvfc/^  Hvi/^,  tuuJrt 


4   -        yiit/s^t  \  Cot,  «f  t-f  v^t  c^  f/  ^tii^«^<  ^^  ''^^^,^«^ 

dMju^  Ley.  JiTXA^ct  ht  62^  ♦'tAWftve.  ^^^     ^      ^4    ^^y>  ^ 


lAovcy   kAA^Clw-   tVWvfe   t>«  yj^ftcOJiV^v  i^  C*>H  A.i/v>i*o 


OvC4   «_ 


i 


cXAaJc 


Itht^ 


tfiAA^ 


ed    l*J    U'UUAt^     Vfl^  jcA^^t^^vtt'    C^ltJCu^^Ay  ,i^UiU   JtA/(tH4    ffA^A^iA  fA 


//«^'< 


^■,  ^     "^' 


,\ 


•i 


:) 


f/  '    /         /  J  '^ 

.1         c  //. 


/»♦* 


£V 


/7t^       U~     ^C,n*^<iyi--    4^^  ^^      y< 


CARTE 

Du  Canada 

OITDELA 

Nouv£LLE  France, 

etdes  Decouvertes  quij^  ont  ete  faites 

Drtjfe'e  tur  plusutav  Ohservatwn^* 
>  /      ,         f     .        .        .     , 

t<inw  utxr^ranc  nomhce  Je  Reiatiorbf  10^1''"'^*^  onmatu^irUM 

dc  1  Acatlcmie   Koytile  flcs  Sciences 
et  Pi'cmier  Cieoyraplxe  <iu  Ro^ 

-17  If 'J' 


r 


/'T'  "T^ 


( 


^  / 


^ 


^ 


c/ 


r 


4-f^TxtLi 


t*^#^/  *t^««/  -tv-H**^- 


-l^ 


'  ;  / 


J?" 


L-^r*..   jfVt.-       4/'-     y*.^«-       f^^^y    -r,^.<,^^     .^/l^^jxji..     A^^/ajJ^     -o/^^i^i/^A— /ir  .^C««»*^ 


y 


«.»-<-. 


"^ 


'7         . 


■<Xt^  — • 


/44*/   <!«  -  >?^^  5<^-/ 8^. 


!<^>->^ 

^^^.^^'^-'4?^ 


.In 


t*w«^l 


u^< 


'C*.lA.C^^ 


^. 


.N' 


V 


^ 


'4 


^ 


1      N^ 


\ 


4 


;i:  * 


V  .^^  '^ 


\ 


I 


/  ^}<-j  .  i^cA.'*-^  9, 


Vf-T'CL 


, /<o,'>vet  LuA^"     «!/*>•  ,    ^r,  (lu^  <ttA  f.*kfTtm 


'r 


«g 


•/-vte 


y  u.. 


.1^ 


■^ 


0), 


•c 


•-*»/«LA-» 


i^^  <*.-^^.eir^i,y    ^jL^..Ji4h-  ct>uKG^' 


'.rjcJ. 


,tt^u^/-^'f^^   ^ftJ^'^^' ^^'''''    -^^-'^4^' 


^jt,T^)^-^<:j,QX.uriaJ^  y^^ 


i? 


^Ul  fu^]iru>o.AAc^   LmZfC^clU  LuCA^^^^rk^.  ^<Lrx.,^^^^^ 


V 


*^ 


i-     ^$ 


•.^i        * 

^^:^   •:>.. 


So 


\ 


Ji  ^CTH.   la- i  Jf^l  ho-1 


Jtivlincj  '    "J^y  ay  r^r\^a.vqi4^.  dec 

Jcicfneup 
\^\  \p^  >  ^^'  fyLyyxoii  (^  ck  h^ei  (iUru  vendue - 


a  VUime^^  cjn  3  STmikl  no7 


t'//  /-•/'//'  t" 


i*    ^fV 


r-t 


u«St< 


d-e  VvuAjL  tt^v^  irl^i*^  ^ltx^%Ajt'WM/wi:li\$jS- 


r^^<f^^'is^  Am^ 


_, ^„    .  ^  <7iMy»4/vvt^^c^< 


\'pc 


Cfl 


I' 


o-'t.on? 


VW4^ 


-^cu^ip^im^ 


crry\.6rej  d^  cidh:cil4  p£vL  inl^es^<x4x^  '    U^e  foen^e  done  qWotX^       ^ 


CL\j  r^y\^OLvaiui.  6e(X\A.coup  cle.ncxvf'iCiX 


0 


t;,,»e>^  ftm***,,  <W»»»»*    »♦•    **"'         ^  ;*..•• 


t^  oi}{iqc<h'ons  c\.  .Mcmsvu^v  J^'^cUtet cL'ccvoir  mis  LfLfoiAjylic- 
(jurv vendue '     yytai^yiuevLy  CcA^vcrn^  Jcih^t^^Henn^  Ht'a 


*•*»  »•''•*- 


>3.- 


t  /!i<^  C- 


-:^j^:2^:' 


M3^r 


5:/  rv 


m 


^ 


'ilRft 


>j»' 


